Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Traffic Congestion

Sue Doughty: If he will make a statement on his plans for (a) traffic and (b) congestion reduction.

John Spellar: For strategic roads, we have introduced incident response units on the busiest motorways, and are working with the police on a range of measures to improve incident and traffic management to keep traffic flowing. In addition, we are in the process of building a new traffic control centre, and are planning a major trial of active traffic management systems on the M42 next year. That ties in with the Highways Agency's extensive programme of local improvements by seeking to make the best use of the existing trunk road network. In London, we have brought together all the key players, including Transport for London, the police and the boroughs, to keep traffic moving in London.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that his Department's advisory committee on trunk road assessment said that traffic reduction can improve economic welfare and that the Chancellor's own forecast for economic growth has been downgraded, will he come clean and admit that there are serious flaws in a reply given to me by the Secretary of State in which he said that "strong economic growth" will mean a greater increase in traffic and congestion? Has he abandoned his plan?

John Spellar: The hon. Lady could have given some credit to the fact that an extra 1.5 million people are in work since 1997, which is a significant factor in increased demand on all transport networks, as we have seen with the growing numbers travelling on the tube and railway system. That is precisely why we are looking at how we can make best use of the existing network, both the highways and in London. We are doing so to increasing effect, but I do not underestimate the difficulties, especially those that arise from the strong economic growth in this country compared with other major economies.

Caroline Flint: It is self-evident that during the school term there is more traffic on the roads than during school holidays, but it is also true that parents are concerned about the safety of their children. More women work these days and are making combination journeys, dropping their kids off before they go to work. What plans does my right hon. Friend have for looking at extending opportunities for safe and affordable school transport to reduce congestion on our roads during school terms?

John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she is aware, in her county of Yorkshire there has been an extremely successful experiment with school buses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, along with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will shortly review the lessons of that experiment and look at how such a scheme could be rolled out. Of course, it is not just about bus transport, either scheduled routes or specialised buses, but about creating the facilities for safer school routes, whether for cycling or walking, and providing realistic alternatives to reduce the need or desire for the school run.

Christopher Chope: Yesterday, the Government announced a welcome U-turn in their approach to the London congestion tax. It is amazing that the Minister has not referred to that tax. The Government have said that they are committed to
	"providing a uniform minimum standard of exemptions or concessions from local road user charges".—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 521W.]
	Can the Minister tell us when those concessions will be introduced? Will they be backdated to 17 February, and will they include help for parents, key workers, shift workers, small businesses and people living just outside the zone? Would it not be better to scrap the whole ludicrous scheme now?

John Spellar: I do not have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the main, those matters are best addressed locally. Mayoral or local authority candidates can put their programme to the electorate, who will either endorse it or not. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want issues to be properly decided by the local authority in the light of local circumstances. Any scheme that is to be introduced must command the majority support of its electorate.

Louise Ellman: What implications do the Strategic Rail Authority's unilateral announcements of cuts in rail services have for integrated transport and the reduction of congestion?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority has introduced a number of measures precisely to increase reliability, which we know, anecdotally and from statistics and public opinion, is the main factor that people consider when deciding whether to take public transport or travel by car. There is no doubt that in certain areas train paths have been oversold, so if anything went wrong on the network the chances of recovery were greatly diminished, which has had a significant impact on the reliability of the system. The SRA believes—we think that it is right—that by taking out some of the less used services, it will be able, particularly with extended trains on other services, to provide a more reliable service and carry more passengers, which will sustain the growth of passenger traffic that has ocurred in recent years.

Don Foster: Further to that answer, are not the Department's claims to be interested in integrated transport increasingly bogus? What thought did it give to the impact on road congestion of sanctioning rail cuts such as those on the line from Bristol Temple Meads to Oxford, which have put thousands of additional cars on the road? Can the Minister at least give us an absolute assurance that there will be no sanctioning of the proposed cuts in rail freight grants, which, if they go ahead, will put millions of additional freight lorry journeys on to our roads each year?

John Spellar: Some £40 million is going into rail freight grants this year alone. On reductions in individual services, those represent some 100 services out of 17,000. As I said in reply to the previous question, our objective is to ensure that we have more reliable services, because that is far more likely to attract people and retain them on the rail system than the current position. That is in line with the expectations of the travelling public and it is the right way to ensure a sustainable rail system.

Rail Services (Birmingham)

Peter Luff: What recent assessment he has made of the (a) reliability and (b) punctuality of commuter train services to Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: The Secretary of State's directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority require it to work to a range of objectives, including reliability, punctuality, and overcrowding. Rail performance has improved slowly over the past 18 months, but remains well below what passengers have the right to expect. Our priority is therefore to secure significant improvement in rail performance. The SRA has announced measures that are expected to improve reliability and punctuality throughout the country, including Birmingham.

Peter Luff: Nothing in the Secretary of State's reply suggested that he really understands just how serious the situation is for Birmingham's commuter services. For schoolchildren, business users, leisure users and the disabled, every journey is like a bad dream, and too many are like a nightmare, and they are getting worse, not better. Even the information that is provided on station platforms is inadequate—never mind overcrowding, punctuality and reliability. Will he throw his weight behind the campaign for a Worcester Parkway station, which would increase capacity on services to Birmingham, and will he do all that he can to ensure that Central train services from places such as Droitwich Spa become decent train services, not the journeys from hell that they are at present?

Alistair Darling: I will certainly look at that proposal, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said a moment ago, the SRA announced changes to services, including the reduction of some 100 services out of 17,000 a day, in order to improve the reliability and punctuality of services.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Birmingham. Just before Christmas, I visited the station at Birmingham, and I can appreciate the problems that are occurring. In the past, Railtrack oversold the amount of track that it had. There are too many trains trying to get through Birmingham New Street, in particular, which has seriously affected congestion and punctuality. That is why the SRA took the very sensible steps to take out some services—as I say, it is only 100 out of 17,000 a day—which will help.
	As regards information, the hon. Gentleman has a good point. As I told the industry last week, it could tell people a lot more a lot sooner than it does. There seems to be a kind of cultural malaise that has prevailed for many years. There is no reason why train operators cannot be more straightforward with people wishing to travel, and if there is a problem, they should tell them about it.

Richard Burden: In addition to improving punctuality and reliability, will my right hon. Friend accept that an important contribution to improving commuter trains to Birmingham generally would be an expansion of park-and-ride facilities? Discussions are going on at the moment about the creation of a station at Birmingham Great Park in my constituency and about the great need for park-and-ride at Longbridge station. Will he look into that to ensure that those plans are expedited?

Alistair Darling: Park-and-ride schemes are an extremely useful way of encouraging more people to use public transport—trains, as well as buses—and I shall certainly consider that. It is also worth noting that when the west coast main line upgrading is finished, that will improve capacity on services going to Birmingham and improve signalling and reliability.
	All these measures—including the management measures taken by the SRA and the new investment going into the west coast main line—will improve reliability. As I said a few moments ago, there is no doubt that although there have been improvements, we still have a long way to go before train services improve to the standard that people rightly expect.

Overcrowding (Trains)

Helen Clark: What action he will take about the causes and effects of overcrowding on trains.

Alistair Darling: As I said a moment ago, the directions that I issued to the SRA require it to work to a range of objectives, which include tackling overcrowding.

Helen Clark: I am grateful for that reply. However, the question arose from my personal experience after Christmas of travelling from Leicester to Peterborough about which I wrote to my right hon. Friend. There were long delays and appalling overcrowding, and pensioners and children were sitting on the floor in the train. That occurs frequently on that line, because of the inability of Birmingham New Street station to cope with the increase in Virgin trains. Thankfully, I had to experience that only once, but it affects some of my constituents in Peterborough daily. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about it, and when?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, as I have just said, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said, there are problems at Birmingham. The SRA decided to reduce some of the services going through that station to ensure greater reliability and punctuality of services. Part of the reason for the overcrowding is that train services are not reliable and are not running on time, so they get busier and busier. The Virgin cross-country route, to which my hon. Friend referred, is one of the routes on which there will be a reduction in some services. That will allow the size of trains to be increased from four carriages to eight, which will help with overcrowding. In addition, some 4,000 new railway carriages have been ordered; there are about 1,500 in service.
	The SRA study into the way in which the line is used, will improve reliability and punctuality, and changes will be made in relation to the London stations. There will be one operator at most stations, rather than several, which will allow trains to get in and out of stations more quickly. All these steps, together with the upgrades of the west coast main line, the channel tunnel rail link and other measures, will help, but I agree with my hon. Friend that for people to stand for long periods in trains is unnecessary and unacceptable, which is why we are determined to do something about it. It is interesting that the Conservatives never make any constructive suggestions to help that process. We are taking the measures that I described. Some of them are difficult, but they will make a difference.

Bob Spink: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 3,000 residents of Canvey island travel by train each day using Benfleet station, where they find that the trains are often overcrowded when they arrive at the station? Is it time that we seriously considered providing a terminus station on Canvey island, so that we can cut train overcrowding and road congestion?

Alistair Darling: I cannot answer that specific question. It would be unwise for me to commit myself to building a new terminus without having considered all the implications. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the continued increased rate of investment going into the railways, which will mean more trains, improved rolling stock, and the management changes that the SRA is making in relation to franchising and the use of the network, will gradually mean better reliability and punctuality and reduce overcrowding. In relation to a number of London lines, measures are already in place to make sure that overcrowding is tackled. It will take time. There is no doubt that the railways have been through a difficult time over the past few years, as I think even the hon. Gentleman's party has acknowledged, but I am confident that the SRA is taking the right steps gradually to deal with two problems: a legacy of underinvestment, and the fact that some 20 per cent. more people are using the railways, which is a good thing, although the industry has been too slow and hitherto has not been properly managed to make sure that we can deal with the increased use. That is now in hand.

Bill O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crazy situation affecting Virgin trains at Wakefield station, where passengers are allowed to alight from the train, but not to board it? That means that passengers have to travel to Leeds to catch a train to go through Wakefield, which is causing congestion and extra traffic into Leeds. Will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to try to rectify that barmy situation, whereby people can get off a train, but cannot get on the train at the same station? It is just crazy.

Alistair Darling: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I heard on the radio the other day a man giving what I would regard as a not wholly convincing answer as to why that was being done. If a train stops at a station, passengers have a reasonable expectation that they can get on or off. Not only can I give him the undertaking that he seeks, but I am already on that case.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will recall the number of occasions on which his Government have made the same commitment to reduce overcrowding. They did so in October 2001, when in paragraph 44 of their response to the Select Committee's report on rail investment, they stated:
	"On commuter services, the priorities will be reductions in overcrowding and better reliability."
	How does he square that commitment, which has been made repeatedly, with the Strategic Rail Authority's announcement that it is going to cancel 100 trains a day?

Alistair Darling: Let me explain yet again to the hon. Lady what the problem is. There are parts of the network where too many trains are running along the available track. The problem is acute in Birmingham, as has been said. Anyone who considers the railway for a moment will see that the difficulty is that, without a reduction in the number of services, that problem would be exacerbated.
	Perhaps it would help the hon. Lady if I gave her an example of the sort of problem with which we are dealing. On one service, an average of six passengers were using a train that was built to carry 140 people. Surely, if taking that train out of service allows more trains to run more reliably, that is the right thing to do. Let me give her another Birmingham example. From October last year, as a response to the Virgin cross-country service, Central trains increased the number of services that it was running from two trains an hour to five. The result was congestion, as the trains simply could not get into the station. The SRA has reduced the number to four trains an hour, so the number of services has increased on the original number, but there is better management.
	No matter what Government are in power, the railways need to be managed properly. Indeed, it is an indictment of the Government whom the hon. Lady supported in the past that they did not manage the railways properly. What the SRA has announced is essential to ensure better reliability and punctuality. I am very sorry that she cannot see that.

Trans-Pennine Express

James Purnell: What improvements for passengers he expects the new franchise for the trans-Pennine express to deliver.

John Spellar: The new trans-Pennine express franchise is intended to provide for faster and higher quality long-distance passenger rail services between major towns and cities across the north of England. Its terms will reflect the outcome of negotiations with bidders, among other things.

James Purnell: When my right hon. Friend is next in the north-west, may I encourage him to pop into the Stalybridge buffet bar, which many rail enthusiasts believe to be the best on the network? May I also warn him that, while he is sampling one of the many Belgian bottled beers that we have on offer, he may be taken aback at the anger of commuters on the trans-Pennine express? Will he meet me to discuss the petition that was signed by more than 400 commuters and discuss how we can improve the reliability and frequency of the trains and redevelop the station? Will he urge the SRA to act on that petition?

John Spellar: The first invitation is obviously a must for when I am next in the north-west. I think that I also detected an offer from my hon. Friend to stand a pint at the bar.
	As I know what an assiduous constituency MP my hon. Friend is, I am sure that he will engage with his local authority to put a case to the Strategic Rail Authority to consider a rail passenger partnership in his area. Of course, I would certainly be more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.

Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend come to Burnley at an early date to look at the need to improve the trans-Pennine service that runs via Burnley station, where there is tremendous potential? Everybody in Burnley is hoping that the new franchise will ensure that we get the service delivery to which we are entitled.

Hon. Members: What about beer?

John Spellar: There was a certain lack in that particular request.
	As my hon. Friend knows, I am due to visit Burnley in a couple of Fridays' time, albeit at half-past eight in the morning. I shall certainly look forward to discussing the matter with him further and I am sure that we can incorporate that into my visit.

Rail Services (Penzance)

Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the quality of main line rail services to Penzance.

David Jamieson: The Government recognise the importance of main line rail services to Cornwall. Delivering significant improvement is our top priority. The Strategic Rail Authority has correctly made improving performance a clear priority; it is the passengers' prime requirement.

Andrew George: The Minister knows that punctuality has got worse for passengers in my constituency in the past five years. There are plans for further main line service cuts. Does the Minister therefore understand the extreme disappointment at the news that the SRA is due to terminate the rail passenger partnership fund, which we had hoped to use for the important dualling of the Probus and Burngullow eight-mile section? That would improve the efficiency of services that run to my constituency. Will he confirm that the lack of RPP funding will not jeopardise such services?

David Jamieson: The number of trains from Penzance to Birmingham has reduced by one under the scheme that was announced earlier. The same service as last September now exists. The service passes through my constituency and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new Virgin Voyager service, which is a considerable improvement on the line. I know about the Probus to Burngullow section of the line, which is important for improving the reliability and throughput of trains. Under the Connecting Cornwall partnership for redoubling the line, Cornwall county council is consulting Network Rail. They are preparing a bid under objective 1 funding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad that the Government fought hard to get that funding, which makes such a bid possible, for Cornwall. The SRA knows about the scheme, but it has not been presented formally for funding. When that happens, it will receive careful consideration.

Candy Atherton: Does my hon. Friend know that Railtrack signed an agreement that gave priority to local runners for the intercity services to and from Penzance? That leads to long delays through Cornwall. Will he urgently ask the SRA to reconsider the decision?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am aware of the effort that she and others made to get objective 1 funding in the area. I assure her that her important point will be considered in the review of the services.

Gary Streeter: Why did the Government and the SRA pour scorn on First Great Western's proposals, which were announced last October, to upgrade the rail link to Penzance that passes through my constituency in Plymouth when they now back a £6 billion upgrade of the rail link to Scotland? Is there one rule for the west country and another for the rest of the country?

David Jamieson: Many of the improvements that have been made to other parts of the network, for example, on the west coast main line and services into London benefit the west country as well as other parts of Britain. Congestion on other sections of the line is part of the reason for the services' failure to get through. If the hon. Gentleman had travelled on the service recently, he would know about some of the improvements. He smiles, but I do not know when he last travelled on the service. If he had, he would know about some of the improvements.

Hydrogen Fuel

Tam Dalyell: What action he has taken to commission studies into the use of hydrogen fuel in transport.

David Jamieson: The Department has commissioned a study by Ricardo Consulting Engineers into the lifecycle carbon dioxide benefits of vehicles, including hydrogen vehicles.
	We have also commissioned an expert study of the benefits of various alternative fuels, including hydrogen.
	Both studies have been published on the Department for Transport website.

Tam Dalyell: On 9 December, some of us in the parliamentary scientific committee heard a convincing presentation on hydrogen by Derek Charters of MIRA—the Motor Industry Research Association—and Professor Richard Clegg of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. It was realistic and well researched. What sort of time scale can we expect for the reports to result in some action?

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question on that important matter. I know of his long-standing interest in it. It is difficult to predict the long-term future because some specific technological changes have to be tackled first.
	There is the very important issue of the storage and transport of hydrogen, and there are a number of associated issues, not least the development of fuel cells, an important matter with regard to the use of hydrogen.
	My hon. Friend will also be aware that some important environmental issues need to be addressed before we go full steam ahead with hydrogen. The hydrogen would have to be produced from renewable means. All the information that we have suggests that it is likely that, in perhaps 30 or 40 years' time, the future of transport will be in hydrogen. In the meantime, the Government are taking a number of very important measures that will reduce the amount of pollution and the amount of CO2 from vehicles in the shorter to medium term.

Robert Key: Will the Minister allow me to help him by telling him that the answer to the question is that it will be between 15 and 30 years before hydrogen can be used as an everyday fuel, particularly in motor vehicles? It depends on when the technology is available. When he talks to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will he ensure that the work at Culham carries on and is fully funded, so that we can see whether nuclear fusion will be a proper option or whether it could be solar power or wind power that generates the necessary hydrogen?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman and I at least agree on the time scale. He said 15 to 30 years, and I said about 20 to 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the Government's powering future vehicles strategy, which brings together four of the important partners in Government Departments and draws together the threads of the policy on this matter. We have also brought together many of the stakeholders in industry, the environment, the oil-producing industry and the car industry to address some of these important issues. Grants are available through the Department of Trade and Industry to assist in the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised. If he wishes to take those forward through my Department or the DTI, we shall be very pleased to see that.

Gourock-Dunoon Catamaran

Alan Reid: What discussions he has had with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the safety of passengers travelling on the catamaran Ali Cat from Gourock to Dunoon.

David Jamieson: Surveyors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency inspected the Ali Cat on 29 October, 21 November and again on 28 November 2002 with the Health and Safety Executive. The ship was found to be operating safely. Minor recommendations were made to reduce movement of the gangway and the MCA continues to monitor the situation.

Alan Reid: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the incident at Dunoon pier on 16 January, about which I have sent him statements from passengers. Will he ensure that a public inquiry is held into that incident because passengers were close to being killed? At that inquiry, will passengers or their legal representatives be able to question the managing director of CalMac and the owner of the vessel, because in letters to the press those gentlemen have arrogantly dismissed passengers' concerns? Will the role of the MCA also be questioned? It is a matter of great concern that the MCA granted the vessel a licence to operate in those waters. The main concern is the safety of the vessel not at sea, but at Dunoon pier.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important matter. I know, from the correspondence that he has sent me and the evidence that he has received from his constituents and others, that a very serious situation could have developed on 16 January. I share his concerns. I assure him that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has launched a very full investigation of the points made by his constituents and others. The pier authority at Dunoon has now fitted a wave gauge to assist the masters of vessels. I think that the problem is not so much the vessel and its quality, but the conditions in which it is operating. Caledonian MacBrayne issued instructions to masters not to embark or disembark passengers when waves were higher than 0.6 m. I shall look very carefully at the agency's investigation. Once we have its report, we shall decide what further action to take.

David Cairns: Given that the catamaran normally operates on the Solent as a pleasure cruiser in the summer months, the Minister will understand that there will be concerns about its suitability for use on the River Clyde in the depths of winter, when conditions are frequently as bad as those to which he alluded. What assurances can I give my constituents who use the ferry regularly that when they do so, they will be travelling in complete safety?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend's comment is extremely important. The point is not that the vessel is inherently unsafe but that the conditions and height of the waves on the day to which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) referred created the danger. When the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has delivered its report and made its recommendations, I shall certainly ensure that Members are informed and that anything we can learn from those is used in the operation of the vessel.

Power Supplies (Rail Network)

Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the availability of power on the rail network.

Alistair Darling: The Strategic Rail Authority has put in place measures to ensure the upgrading of the power supply to accommodate the new trains for services to the south and east of London.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Will he confirm the report in this week's Public Finance, which says that the SRA—in other words, the taxpayer—will have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for new carriages being left in sidings due to a power supply shortage? What services will have to be cut to pay for that compensation? Finally, will he confirm that the power supply shortages have led to the delay in withdrawing the less safe mark 1 carriages?

Alistair Darling: It might help if I explain the position to the hon. Gentleman and the House. The power supply on the lines to the south and east of London should have been upgraded some years ago. This is another Railtrack legacy that we have to deal with. The power supply was put in on most lines in the 1930s, and a bit more work was done in the 1960s. It should have been foreseen years ago that the new rolling stock would not be able to run efficiently on the existing power supply. That is being remedied, and the SRA and Network Rail will spend about £1 billion over the next few years to upgrade supply.
	At the moment, we think that between 300 and 500 trains will not be able to be introduced according to the proposed timetable—towards the end of 2004—but they should be in service by mid-2005. The SRA and Network Rail are getting to grips with the problem, and the money is going in to ensure that the trains can run as they were designed to run. I am afraid that this is yet another example of a problem that Railtrack should have seen and done something about years ago.

Jonathan R Shaw: My right hon. Friend said that there are too many trains on the old track, but he knows that we have new track in Kent—the channel tunnel rail link. When he comes to decide where those trains will stop, will he ensure that they stop in Thanet, which is one of the poorest areas of Kent, and the Medway towns, which are the engine for the regeneration of the Thames gateway? Never mind the offers of imported beer made during the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell)—if the Secretary of State makes the right choice, he can have the finest ale, which comes from the garden of England.

Alistair Darling: I see that, at least among Labour Members, there is a growing tendency to offer strong drink in return for additional rail services. As my granny would have said, that is not always the best way to take key decisions. The SRA is looking at what domestic services could be increased and improved when the channel tunnel rail link is continued. I understand perfectly, as my hon. Friend has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions, the desirability of improving the service, particularly from north Kent to London. The SRA is considering that, so he perhaps ought to offer a drink to it as well as to Ministers—we never know what might happen!

John Horam: Is it the case that operators such as Connex South Eastern can deal with the problem of lack of power supply only by running the new trains in what they describe as a degraded fashion—slower than they should be run?

Alistair Darling: It is true that if the power supply is not of the strength needed, it affects the operation of the trains. As I said to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) a few moments ago, the difficulty is that Connex, which ordered the trains, and Railtrack, which was responsible for the network, ought to have seen the problem so that it could have been dealt with far earlier. As it is, I expect that the majority of the new rolling stock coming on to the service will be able to run until the end of 2004. The 300 to 400 trains that would otherwise have come on to the line will come on by mid-2005.
	The fact is, I am afraid, that because Railtrack did not do the work when it should have been done, the standard of service was inevitably not as high as it should have been. Unfortunately, that remains the case. There is no shrinking from the fact that, until the power supply is fully upgraded, trains will not run as they should.

Stephen Ladyman: Any 10-year-old boy playing with a train set knows that two engines on the same electric line run at half the speed possible for just one train. Why did not the rocket scientists who run Connex and who used to run Railtrack notice that? Is my right hon. Friend certain that the time scale for putting new power into the south-east will be as short as possible?

Alistair Darling: I certainly hope that it will be. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that there were too many people in Railtrack who did not spend enough time thinking about what was happening on the track but who were over-concerned about the possibilities of property development. It is an indictment of the previous Government that the company that they set up to run this country's rail network was focused not on running the railways but on how much money could be made out of property development.

Tim Collins: A moment ago the Secretary of State said, "Whatever Government are in power, the railways need to be managed properly." The fiasco that he has just described will take place next year—seven years after this Government took office. Is he really saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with him? Is this the "not me, guv" Government?

Alistair Darling: Actually, I was agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said just before Christmas, when he published his long-awaited railway policy. I heard him on the "Today" programme at about half past six in the morning when he announced it. What he said bears repetition:
	"The fruits of increased investment"—
	and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the acknowledgement—
	"are often overshadowed by the problems that continue to beset rail infrastructure. It should be acknowledged that Railtrack failed to get to grips with these problems."
	That is a welcome admission that Railtrack did not live up to the expectations of those who floated the company in the mid-1990s. As I have told the House on a number of occasions, the SRA and Network Rail are getting to grips with the problem. The Opposition were extremely critical only a few months ago of those bodies, but I note that the same policy document to which I have referred already makes it clear that it is now Conservative policy to support Government policy on Network Rail. Thank goodness those bodies are getting to grips with the problem, as that is the only way in which we are going to improve the quality of services for passengers in the south-east of England who have suffered far too long from inadequate services, overcrowding and lack of reliability. Those problems are now being addressed.

Tim Collins: Since the long-term applicability of the right amount of power to the rail network clearly depends on predicting accurately the level of passenger and freight demand, will the Secretary of State answer the important question dodged earlier by the Under-Secretary about the axing of rail freight grants? Instead of saying what that grant will be this year, will the right hon. Gentleman say what it will be next year and the year after?

Alistair Darling: The £40 million applies to next year as well. The SRA is constantly looking at its budgets to ensure proper cost control. That is right, and it is something that the SRA will continue to do throughout its lifetime. Cost control is another thing that Railtrack let rip. One reason we face problems with investment is that Railtrack had no idea about how to control costs. The SRA continues to support rail freight, not only through grants but because the charges on rail freight are slightly less than on passenger trains. All sorts of measures are being taken, including, for example, increasing capacity for freight on the west coast main line. The Government are committed to getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, in his new Conservative party policy, has accepted what is happening to some extent. We now have better management, and one other ingredient—sustained money going into the railways. The Government will double the amount going into the railways between 2001 and the end of this Parliament. That is essential. When the hon. Gentleman next comes to look at his policy, he might also want to reconsider the Conservative policy of cutting spending by 20 per cent. That would be devastating.

Waterloo-Exeter Rail Line

David Laws: What plans he has to increase rail investment on the Waterloo to Exeter line.

David Jamieson: On 6 November 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority announced a new approach to the South West Trains franchise, which excluded infrastructure enhancements on the Waterloo-Exeter route. Towards the end of this month, the SRA will publish its revised strategic plan setting out its priorities for the network.

David Laws: Does the Minister understand how disappointed many people in the south-west are that the SRA should have U-turned on its plans to dual the Salisbury-Exeter stretch of line? Is not it time at least to consider a more limited scheme that might dual particular stretches of track to improve reliability and safety? Given the spirit in which Labour Members appear to go about their lobbying, would the Minister be willing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) over a cider at Yeovil Junction railway station to discuss how we can get to the bottom of the matter?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the SRA has to prioritise its funds for lines where there is the greatest pressure. He has heard today, from Members on both sides of the House and not least from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), about the pressure for extra spending on certain parts of the network. The new approach to franchises focuses on improving reliability and replacing some of the slam-door trains.
	I should very much enjoy a pint of cider in the west country with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As the hon. Member for Yeovil is described as the highly regarded deputy economic spokesman of his party, who has been given the job of cutting £2 billion out of the budget before the election, perhaps he could explain, over that pint, how he will afford some of those improvements in the unlikely event that the Liberal Democrats come into government.

George Young: As Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I am taking an increasing interest in the inducements that are being offered in these exchanges.
	The Minister will be aware that the Waterloo to Exeter service runs through important stations, such as Overton, Whitchurch, Andover and Grateley. Is he also aware that when a seven to 15-year franchise was on offer to South West Trains the company was prepared to make substantial capital investments, but that as only a short extension is now on offer it is understandably more reluctant? Will he give an assurance that the SRA will step in and make the improvements to which we were all looking forward?

David Jamieson: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments, although I notice that he did not offer me any "seducement" to visit his constituency.
	The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the capital to which he referred was not always available in particular franchises—it was not actually connected to them. I can assure him that we recognise the importance of the line and of those stations, but he must recognise that the SRA, with the available funding, has to deal with the priorities as they stand, including the competing demands from his hon. Friends and other Members on both sides of the House.

Birmingham Northern Relief Road

Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on progress with the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road.

John Spellar: The construction of the M6 toll motorway, formerly known as the Birmingham northern relief road, is the responsibility of the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd. The road is on programme for opening early in 2004.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that part of the purpose of that road is still to stop my constituents using it? As I understand it, the strategic purpose of the road is to relieve through traffic on the M6. If so, that can work only if my constituents and other people in south Staffordshire have reliable and effective ways of getting in and out of the conurbation. At present, they do not. The Chase line is horrendous. May I ask that one bit of my right hon. Friend's Department talks to the other bit? If that new road gets clogged up with my constituents—if they can afford to use it—it will defeat the purpose and in 20 years we shall have demands for a relief road to relieve the relief road.

John Spellar: I can confirm that the primary purpose of the road, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is to relieve the significant bottlenecks at the rail interchange and spaghetti junction, which create problems not only for west midlands industry but also for industry and commerce much further afield. I am sure that he will have held discussions with the motorway concessionaire in order to determine how the interests of his constituents can be served, but I take his point: we also need to look into other modes of transport—as we have pointed out from the Treasury Bench today—to ensure access not only to New Street but to the other stations in central Birmingham, thus freeing up traffic in the conurbation.

Michael Fabricant: The M6 toll road will not only improve connections between the south-east and the north-west; it could also improve connections with Wales through the M54. Is the Minister aware that only four or five miles of single carriageway—the A460—would link the M6 toll road with the M54? May I induce the Minister with a mouldy sandwich at an M6 service station to improve the links between the M6 toll, the M54 and Wales?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Highways Agency has commissioned consultants to complete a feasibility report on possible alignment. It is due to be completed at the end of March 2003, and it will be put to the Secretary of State in the spring. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make representations after that.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister of State was asked—

Regulation

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the better regulation agenda across government.

Douglas Alexander: In the normal course of my duties I attend many functions and events at which I meet business people and we speak on a wide range of topics.
	My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston leads on better regulation. Today, the Better Regulation Task Force is hosting a conference of small firms at which the Government are represented by the Minister with responsibility for small businesses at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths).

Henry Bellingham: I am very pleased to hear about that, because the Minister will be aware of the grave concern in the business community, especially the small business community, about the intolerable burden of regulation. Is he aware that Lord Macdonald launched his regulatory reform action plan a year and a half ago? He promised that in the first year and a half there would be 64 regulatory reform orders, which are much needed by the small business community. How many of those orders have been made?

Douglas Alexander: This provides a helpful opportunity to clarify the position. The Opposition have fundamentally misunderstood the commitment that was given. The regulatory reform action plan contained 268 proposals, of which only 63 were regulatory reform orders. I think that there is therefore a case for the hon. Gentleman to look at the commitment that was given and the progress that is being made towards those goals.

Ian Lucas: Will the Minister assure me that the views of small businesses are taken into account when devising the Government's approach to regulation? As someone who previously ran a small business, I know that regulation is of great concern to businesses that employ, for example, fewer than half a dozen people. Are there specific representatives of small business on any of the bodies that the Government consult when framing policy?

Douglas Alexander: Yes, I draw particular attention to the Better Regulation Task Force, headed by David Arculus, on which there is small business representation. The conference that it is hosting today will see the launch of the small firms impact test, which is included in revised Cabinet Office guidance and is consistent with the work that the Government have taken forward in a range of ways to tackle regulation. The Government set up the Small Business Service at the Department of Trade and Industry actively to promote a "think small first" strategy at all stages of policy development.

Eric Forth: Given the unarguably disproportionate effect that red tape and bureaucracy have on small firms—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has made—and given that the Federation of Small Businesses has claimed recently that many small business owners are bewildered by the changes that the Government keep making and are reluctant to employ new staff for fear of unintentionally falling foul of complex laws, will the Minister help the House by telling us whether he has one of the Government's famous targets for deregulation and getting rid of red tape? If so, what is it? If there is one and he is prepared to tell us what it is, how long will it take to reach that target at the present rate of deregulation?

Douglas Alexander: On the point about employment creation, this Government have created more than 1 million jobs since 1997, many within the small business sector. The regulatory reform action plan contained a large number of commitments—268. The level of progress is currently 27 per cent., and given that we have three further years in which to continue to pursue this work we will take it forward on a month-by-month basis.
	There is a fundamental division across the House on this issue. We make no apology for the national minimum wage, the extension of maternity leave, and the introduction of paternity leave and paid holiday for the first time for many employees across the country.

Public Appointments

Ben Chapman: What progress is being made in providing training for people making an application for public appointments.

Douglas Alexander: The Government are keen to encourage people from all backgrounds to apply for public appointments. For example, my Department has participated in a national outreach campaign of regional seminars led by the Ministers for Women. These seminars gave practical advice on the skills and competencies relevant to public appointments and information on how to apply.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that people appointed to public offices should be representative of society as a whole and that, to achieve that, we need to make people aware of not just the opportunities that arise but the contribution that they could make? Does he agree that, if we do not do that, people on public bodies will continue to be middle class, middle aged and, often, men in suits, rather than having a fair representation of women, ethnic minorities, younger people and the various strata and components of our society?

Douglas Alexander: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. The Government want the boards of public bodies to be representative of society as a whole. It is fair to acknowledge not only the tremendous work that is done by public bodies the length and breadth of the country but the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who has taken forward a range of initiatives to try to ensure that we capture the necessary diversity in public bodies so that they can work with excellence.

John Bercow: Is training mandatory in those circumstances where it is available? Do the Government have a list of approved possible suppliers of such training? If so, how many does the list comprise?

Douglas Alexander: Training is not mandatory in the sense that some people are ideally qualified on the basis of past experience to discharge their responsibilities in public bodies. Given the tenor of previous observations about regulation, I should be surprised if the Opposition were now suggesting that there must be mandatory training for every public body, but perhaps they are now advocating that.

Jon Trickett: Does the Minister accept that manual workers are badly under-represented on such bodies? What steps will he take to increase representation? How might I encourage people from that background in my constituency to become public representatives?

Douglas Alexander: I certainly endorse the desire to ensure that every section of society is well represented on our public bodies. One of the distinguishing features of the way in which public bodies are now advertised is that we are determined to ensure that people in communities throughout the country are made aware of such opportunities, rather than having to rely on our traditional Whitehall network to know that such opportunities are available. I believe that we can continue to do more, and I am encouraged by the strength of feeling in the House on this matter.

Correspondence

Graham Allen: What steps he plans to take to improve the speed and relevance of replies by Departments to letters and inquiries from (a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

Douglas Alexander: The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on the handling of correspondence for Members of Parliament and the public. However, it is the responsibility of individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.

Graham Allen: It is very unfair to ask the Minister this question since his replies are prompt, full and an example to all other Ministers. Indeed, I believe that Sir Andrew Gordon, the chief executive of "Ofmin", may well consider making my hon. Friend a beacon Minister. May I tell my hon. Friend that the standard that he delivers does not necessarily apply across Government? There is increasing discontent among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the speed and fullness of some of the responses to Members. That must be writ large in terms of the public. Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that his colleagues reply as promptly and fully as he does?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course I acknowledge that there is concern in the House about this important matter. We have a responsibility to the House as Ministers to reply promptly. I pay tribute to the work done by the Select Committee on Public Administration on this issue, about which the Government have made clear their determination to improve standards. We are continuing to work towards those goals.

Alan Beith: Given that MPs' letters are the last resort for many desperate constituents who have suffered severe bureaucratic delay and that, according to parliamentary answers, the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have between them 1,500 MPs' letters unanswered after six months, will the Minister bring the authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to bear on the Departments that are not delivering, although I am not sure whether that will work with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote on 8 October about the temporary closure of Berwick court and who still has not replied long after the court has reopened?

Douglas Alexander: I shall be happy to pass on the right hon. Gentleman's concerns to the relevant Ministers.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps know of the proposal to use Caythorpe Court in my constituency as an emergency centre for refugees. Is he aware of the strong opposition to that in my constituency? Is he aware that, on 14 December, I wrote to the Minister of State responsible, but did not receive a reply until 17 January, after a parliamentary question asking for a reply? Is he aware that, on Monday last week, I asked for a meeting? I have been told that there are personal reasons why I cannot have a meeting until 11 February. Accordingly, I have asked the Home Secretary for a meeting and, so far, that has been declined. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that pattern of conduct is in accordance with the conventions and practices of Ministers or the House, or is in any way satisfactory?

Douglas Alexander: I can only reiterate that as the concerns raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman relate directly to the Home Office, I will pass them on to the Home Secretary.

Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems with ministerial replies to correspondence is not just the speed or fullness of the reply but whether the Minister answers the question? Is it possible to advise officials that it is not good enough to pull together a few standards paragraphs on a subject? It is helpful to read the letter and answer the question that the correspondent has put.

Douglas Alexander: The present guidance, "Handling Correspondence for Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments" sets out the principles that Departments should follow when replying to Members' correspondence.

Fire Dispute

John Prescott: With permission, I shall make a statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of negotiations at ACAS.
	The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should
	"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side would seek to rule any issue in or out".
	Despite that, the FBU executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes, and at 9 o'clock this morning the FBU walked out for the fourth time. It will be on strike for 48 hours and at present it is scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.
	While we sit here, the armed forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained firefighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking firefighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me yet again in expressing our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute. I have made it clear that the armed forces will have the resources that they need. As I said when I made my last statement to the House on 20 January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the green goddess fleet. For the first time during these strikes, we now have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The armed forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.
	The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt: the switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one-day and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on behalf of the FBU; far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.
	It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety, and we will continue to do so. The House should be aware, however, that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million, and costs will continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues, whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve; it has come from programmes in my Office, many of which are designed to help the most needy in our communities.
	The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the fire service rather than pay and modernisation as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better fire service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for fire service employees. The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is now before the House and is recommended by the Bain inquiry. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation.
	The repeal of section 19 will do no more than put the management of the fire service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is one that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on fire service priorities and plans. That has not changed. Let no one be in any doubt: the FBU's claim remains, as it has for the past nine months, a 40 per cent. pay rise for firefighters and a 50 per cent. pay rise for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatsoever—no change, no compromise, no modernisation.
	Talks at ACAS started on 4 December. There have been days and days of talks about talks, yet the FBU has walked away from any substantive negotiations. I have had numerous discussions with the general secretary of the FBU, and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt, but this latest strike, coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed, leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.
	The latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and local authority employers want a fully modernised fire service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that. The employers are now rightly insisting that in light of the past two months of strike action, talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU shows, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.
	The fire service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute. We all want a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. That is the only basis for negotiation. But the Government have to be prepared if the FBU continues to refuse to discuss modernisation. Against that background, I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.
	As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the fire service. Those powers will, I hope, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations. I will discuss, through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way to introduce the legislation. I will draw on the provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947 that were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed a Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the fire service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the fire service on its objectives and the use of facilities and assets. Legislation itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take those powers to use, if necessary, to help to reach an agreement.
	The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the fire service employers, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda; we will continue to resist the strikes; and we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety, especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and our armed forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.
	It will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultations that I have proposed. Meanwhile, the House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table in the remaining weeks available.

David Davis: May I begin by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for prior warning of it? I should like to add our support to his calls for the FBU to call off its irresponsible strike action. May I also take this opportunity, as he did, of offering the thanks of the House to the armed forces, the other emergency services and, most particularly, the retained firefighters, without whose service the safety of the public could not be guaranteed?
	Sadly, we are becoming all too familiar with hearing a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on fire strikes. Today we will continue to look for answers to the questions that are still unanswered. By taking this opportunity to raise a number of practical matters with him before dealing with the substantive new announcement, I hope that I will give the House time to digest the full import of his proposal.
	Throughout this action, we have tried to extract from the Government commitments in several areas, including transitional funding and the effects that modernisation will have on the fire service. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told a Select Committee that this 48-hour strike would cost the taxpayer £6 million; that is on top of the £70 million cost of the strikes to date. Will he confirm those figures to the House, and, given that this is such a large sum of money, precisely how he will meet the transitional funding required? Also, exactly which of the public services that he referred to will be reduced, or eliminated from his departmental budget, as a result of the union's needless strike action? Will he also confirm that those fire authorities that have already modernised will not be hit financially as a result of any budget shortfall?
	As the Deputy Prime Minister said, throughout this action the Fire Brigades Union has repeatedly claimed that modernisation will mean job losses and the closure of fire stations. The best way to dispel lies is with the truth. Will he tell the House what job losses and station closures he expects as a result of modernisation? Since it is in everybody's interests to ensure that members of the union return to work as soon as possible, can he refute union claims that his plans for the fire service will result in 4,500 job losses and the closure of 150 stations? If he cannot refute those claims, can he tell the House how he will maintain high service levels throughout the country and especially in rural areas, and—as I have asked him before—halve the level of deaths, as has been done in other countries?
	Given the FBU's irresponsible action, members of our military are yet again on the streets of the United Kingdom, protecting the public from fires. The cover they have provided throughout the action has been excellent, and we thank them for that. Everybody wants this series of strikes to come to a rapid end, and that means persuading the firefighters that Bain is a good deal, and that they should persuade the FBU to accept the deal.
	The dominant and immediate issue, however, is that of public safety, particularly given the combination of possible terrorism at home and war in Iraq. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister specifically about the cover provided by 16 Air Assault Brigade, and how it was going to be replaced when that unit was committed elsewhere. I am afraid that he tried to bluster his way out of the question. As column 26 of Hansard shows, he said:
	"I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26.]
	I suspect that his civil servants gave him a talking to after that, because a day or two later he had to write to me. The key sentence in his letter was:
	"For strike action on 28 January"—
	today—
	"16th Air Assault will be replaced in full."
	In the past two weeks, the Ministry of Defence has failed to give an answer on this, and last week the Deputy Prime Minister refused to give an answer. Can the House of Commons now have a straight account of exactly how the Government are going to protect the public, with troops being deployed to Iraq?
	Of course, the Opposition have faced this lack of response from the Government before on raising public safety issues. First, the Government deny the significance of the issue, then they rubbish the feasibility of the proposal, and finally they try to claim credit for doing what we called for in the first place. We saw this with the red fire engines, and I suspect that we will do so again with the use of the law in this dispute. As we agreed last week, the risks of strike action increase every week with the combined threats of terrorism and war in Iraq. This week, the prospect of resolution of the strike looks as far away as ever. So the House can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's frustration, and his probable belief that these negotiations will get nowhere in the foreseeable future; indeed, that is pretty much what he said today.
	As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal, he will take to himself the right to impose a conclusion of the negotiation process, and to decide the firefighters' terms and conditions. What is absolutely unclear is what he will do if they continue to strike, against his decision. We will look at this proposal carefully, and if we are persuaded that it will work we will facilitate its progress through the House; however, we do not know that it will stop the strike. It may well end the negotiations, but it will not stop the strike, and doing so is the key issue.
	Throughout the strikes, the Deputy Prime Minister has rubbished our calls for an injunction, calling them inflammatory. Does not the action that he has proposed today inflame the situation without necessarily providing any prospect of a resolution? This morning, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions rightly said that the strikes are
	"completely pointless, would not achieve anything . . . and put the public at risk."
	He was right, but if that is not a public interest argument for an injunction stopping the strike, I do not know what is.
	I ask the Deputy Prime Minister once more whether he will request the Attorney-General to seek an injunction against the strike on public interest grounds. We all know that the final decision will be made by the courts, but that will not happen without initial action by the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at his changes to the 1947 Act, but action to stop these dangerous strikes is what the public want.

John Prescott: At the beginning, I should express appreciation for the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation and support for the emergency services, which everyone on both sides of the House fully endorses.
	On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum. I pointed out to the Select Committee that I therefore face some difficult choices, as that cost will not be funded from reserves but from my Department's budget. Sometimes, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, Departments underspend and sometimes they overspend, and I have to make a judgment about where that money will come from, but it will come from the Department. The more money that is used for the dispute, the more difficulties are created—do I cut back programmes or, indeed, do I find transference money necessary for the two or three-year deal proposed by Bain?
	I shall have to deal with those difficulties as they arise, but we cannot be certain that they have been resolved until negotiations have been concluded. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we would like the dispute to finish. I would like the negotiations to result in a settlement with as little bitterness as possible. The longer disputes go on, the greater the difficulties. It is far better to have an agreement, which is why I fundamentally believe that it is far better to provide opportunities for an agreeable negotiated position than to impose a solution. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether legislation will in fact secure what he wants—the ceasing of a strike if he made it illegal or the Attorney-General took action. The situation is difficult, but the evidence does not necessarily lead one to accept that by introducing such legislation the dispute will be ended. I do not believe that that is the case, and my own experience shows why. One has to make a judgment, and I have sought to do so.
	If I can just deal with the role of the Attorney-General, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's job to make a judgment about the Attorney-General. I notice that every time a statement is made in the House, the shadow Attorney-General is never here to give his view.

David Davis: I will bring him next time.

John Prescott: Well, do that so I can ask him directly for his advice. It will be the same as the advice I get from the Attorney-General—he has to make a judgment. He consults, takes various matters into account and makes judgments about public safety, but it is he who makes the judgment—the Government cannot direct him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Attorney-General keeps himself fully informed of the situation. We are therefore at odds about the best way to use legislation. I have proposed intervention and the possibility of an imposed solution, which allows an awful lot more time while discussions are under way in the House and consultations are conducted for negotiations to continue. I would like a negotiated settlement—let us be clear about that. I want the employers and the employees to work to find a settlement themselves.
	My proposal almost suggests an end-date for the negotiations that have been going on for nearly 12 months since the first announcement of strikes. In any reasonable assessment one would assume that a negotiated settlement could be achieved within a 12-month period. I hope that that will be done in a shorter time but, quite apart from the extra costs involved, we are in special circumstances and are reaching a stage where public safety is a concern. Everyone in the House praises the emergency services currently in operation but we all accept that they are not as good as having full-time firefighters. I am therefore obliged to bring the situation to a conclusion, hence the reason for my judgment today.
	As for jobs lost, the Bain inquiry makes it clear that there is no need for compulsory redundancies, even through the modernisation proposals, and refers to the number of early retirements through the pension scheme. The situation faced by those in the union is quite different from that which was faced by the miners, who were told, "We're closing 100 pits and 100,000 workers will be redundant from tonight." That is not the position that is facing the fire workers, and it is wrong for them to suggest that it is.
	The closure of fire stations is unjustified. Again, I refer to the Bain inquiry. At the end of the day, we have to strike a balance between intervention and prevention; that is what the new risk assessment is about. Risk assessment is not new to the fire service—it has constantly undertaken it in relation to the siting of fire stations. That should continue, and it is not proposed that it should change, but the balance between intervention and prevention that Bain talked about is an important part of it.
	As regards public safety concerns and the use of armed forces, whenever there is a deployment of whatever divisions of whatever parts of the Army, the armed forces have told us clearly that there will be no reduction in the numbers of people deployed and that full cover will be provided. All that I have to do is to accept the word of armed forces representatives that they have the same amount of people, that the trained personnel are in place and that they can maintain the same level of service. I have no reason to doubt that, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was doubting it. He played around with which regiments are here and which are there. That is fair enough—he might find it interesting—but for me the reality is whether the same amount of troops are deployed in the same way and whether they possess the same skills. We are giving them extra equipment. That is good enough for me, and if it is good enough for the armed services, I accept their word on that.
	In all such matters, Secretaries of State are accountable for making a balance of judgment, and I have given the House my best consideration of that. Apparently, the Opposition would rush into making legislation to ban strikes or to give directions to the Attorney-General. That would not help the situation. I have struck a balance that means that there is an end to the time in which negotiations can take place. I shall take powers, with the consent of the House, to implement such an agreement. If it is not implemented, I can implement it through the power that I am seeking today. The important point is that there is time to continue the negotiations. That is what we want—for both parties to get back to the negotiating table.

Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and join him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in expressing our thanks to the armed forces, to the other emergency services and to the many retained firefighters who are working to help the public during strikes.
	As he will know, Liberal Democrat Members have agreed with him on many of the actions that he is taking during the dispute, including the need for a fair pay settlement linked to real modernisation along the lines of the Bain review. However, we cannot agree with the statement. Does he not realise that rushing the proposed emergency legislation through the House will be seen as a measure that is designed to inflame the dispute, not to solve it? Throughout the dispute, the Deputy Prime Minister has worked hard to win over the hearts and minds of firefighters. Why, then, is he now seeking to alienate them with this panic measure? Will he acknowledge that rushed emergency legislation has a very chequered history in this House? Does he recognise that if rushed legislation on dangerous dogs was flawed, rushed legislation on fire services could be fatal?
	The Deputy Prime Minister claims that yesterday's decision by the FBU executive was the trigger for today's statement. We share his regret and anger that the FBU has pressed ahead with strikes and appears to have decided to turn its back on ACAS, and we share his view that the Government could not leave that decision unanswered, and did indeed have to act. However, surely now is the time for compulsory and binding arbitration. Why have the Government not announced that they will require the FBU and the employers to attend talks at ACAS, forcing both sides to the negotiating table? The Deputy Prime Minister says that he wants the involvement of the independent arbitrator, and that is the most sensible way forward.
	Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise what a dangerous precedent he is setting? Who will be next on the Government's hit list for imposed pay settlements without negotiation or independent arbitration? This is a huge centralisation of power. Will the Government's next target be health workers or teachers, or will Ministers reserve such treatment for the emergency services, including the ambulance service? The Deputy Prime Minister rightly tells us that his top priority is public safety. Does he not realise that if Ministers were to intervene in two-hour stoppages, however frustrating, the practical effect could be to reduce public safety, as firefighters would be likely to withdraw their labour completely?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is reported to have said that transitional funding for modernisation could be cut if strikes go ahead? Does he realise that far from punishing the firefighters, that would punish the British public and local communities? Will he also explain his astonishing revelation that the cost of the strike is coming not from the reserve, but from his own Department's budget? How he can justify that decision, which he himself admits will hit those most in need?
	Throughout the dispute, Liberal Democrat Members have given the Government the benefit of the doubt. We completely agreed that the FBU's 40 per cent. pay claim was outrageous and that any fair pay settlement must be linked to real modernisation. Yet we also believe that today's statement is a major mistake by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister is in great danger of losing the support of the public and of the House.

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for offering the typical support that Liberal Democrats provide in such difficult situations.
	As I understand his case, he believes that there should be fair negotiations connected to modernisation, and that both parties should be involved. We can all put our hands up in favour of that—for nine months, we have been trying to get the two parties to do precisely that. His solution appears to be to force both sides to go to arbitration. Presumably, that would require some legislation to direct them, but he is telling me that I should not use legislation in that way. At the moment the firefighters are refusing to go to ACAS, and I do not think that they will change their minds simply because the Liberals get up and say that they should do so or that I should not introduce legislation. Does he accept that I would require legislation to direct them to go in as a negotiating team? Does he think that that is an easy process? It certainly is not. He is not jumping up to correct me, so I assume that he accepts that we need legislation. Curiously, the Liberals have supported similar legislation—the Fire Services Act 1947. Admittedly, there were not so many of them then, but nevertheless they supported the essential principles of that Act. In various disputes, the Secretary of State has to make decisions in areas where public safety could be threatened, and that is presumably why such provisions were included in the 1947 Act.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am rushing the legislation, but that is not so. I have to consult everybody, including the Liberals—I have started that process, and perhaps they will rethink their position—and I must then make a proposal to the House, which will debate the primary legislation. I suspect that there may even be a statutory requirement to lay an order, so that the House would have to debate the matter again. That is not a quick process. It will take several weeks for the House to discuss the proposals, which means that there are many weeks in which the negotiations can continue without any enforced situation. It is a matter of judgment, and I have decided to take this course of action, which allows for negotiations, but says to both parties, "You cannot continue to have deadlock in this situation without facing possible intervention with the agreement of this House."

John MacDougall: Would my right hon. Friend join me in expressing his condolences, and those of the House, to the family and friends of Sidney Lennon, who was affectionately known as John Lennon, his wife Linda and his son Paul, who tragically died through fire at their home in my constituency, in Hill Road, Kennoway in Fife, at 3 am on Sunday morning? Sadly, in those tragic circumstances, the issue of the Bain report cropped up in the media. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there are no proposals by the Government that would weaken public safety during the early hours of the morning, which are known by fire brigade staff as the dead hours?

John Prescott: I can tell my hon. Friend that I read of a tragic case—I think that it was in the Daily Mirror—in which people died during the evening in terrible circumstances in a fire that occurred at their home. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their support and deepest sympathy, through my hon. Friend, for the family that is facing such tragedy.
	I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that public safety will be maintained at the highest level. He mentioned the Bain report—the point of that was to increase fire coverage. It is not always a matter of intervention. The tragedy of many deaths that occur as a result of fires at night is that although the firefighters are quick to get there, a fire that might have been prevented by fire prevention techniques of some kind is often already well advanced. I do not know whether that was so in the case my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a great deal of evidence to show that we should emphasise prevention rather than intervention and achieve a better balance between them. That is precisely what the Bain inquiry proposed, and I want to discuss with the FBU how we can achieve that.

Brian Mawhinney: As the last Secretary of State who had to face prolonged public sector strikes, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that he continues to take a firm stance on the firefighters' strike? Will he tell the House when, according to the latest Government estimate, the continued need to use the armed forces in the dispute will start to impact negatively on national security in the context of Iraq?

John Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support. As regards the armed services, we would take their advice. They tell us that the use of troops in the present dispute does not impinge in any way on the contribution of the armed forces to the situation in Iraq or to fighting the fire dispute. I am sure that they will make it clear if it does impinge on their capability. Obviously, these matters are assessed from time to time. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be better if we brought the dispute to an end, preferably by negotiation. What I have done today is to set an end date to the negotiations.

Doug Henderson: I have a lot of sympathy with my right hon. Friend's suggestion in his statement that there is a need to reform the employers' side of the negotiating structure in the fire service. I understand the need for change in that respect, but may I prod him about his intentions in a situation where the Secretary of State imposes a settlement? Will there be an implied no-strike clause included in the legislation whereby in the event of a union not accepting the Secretary of State's position and taking industrial action, an injunction would be sought to bring the union and its members back into procedures?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is aware of the sensitivities involved in such matters. He is right to point out the responsibilities of the employers in these circumstances. That was pointed out by Bain, who proposed radical changes for the employers as well as the trade unions. We have already set in hand a number of changes on the management side, which require Government action. I have indicated to the House that we intend to do that.
	With regard to the Secretary of State taking action in the way that I described today, it is not an imposition on the unions; it is an imposition on the fire authorities, which have the responsibility for the payment. That is how it was envisaged in the 1947 Act, and that is how we envisage it. If the employees refuse to accept the payment through their banks, I assume that they can send the money back. The more serious point is whether they decide to continue to strike. That is a judgment to which the FBU will have to address itself. It should make that judgment soon, rather than maintaining for a number of months the threat to public safety and the expense. The matter needs to be drawn to a conclusion. Any idea of guerrilla tactics going on for 12 months or so, which some have advocated—holding odd strikes from time to time—is unacceptable and does nothing to help public safety. I have made it clear that that will not be tolerated.

John Maples: At the Kineton army base in my constituency, with the British Army's ammunition dump, the defence fire services have two modern, fully equipped fire engines. In the normal course of events, one of those fire engines is made available to assist in local emergencies, but they have received an unequivocal order, which I have seen, that in the present fire dispute, neither of those fire engines should in any circumstances be made available to help with emergencies. Apparently that order comes from the Ministry of Defence and therefore, presumably, there are similar orders to defence fire services across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister is not exactly famous for fighting his battles with his hands tied behind his back. Why is he doing so in this case?

John Prescott: I do not know the details of the matter, but I will look into it. It is right for the Ministry of Defence to make decisions about the use of its own equipment in these circumstances. I do not want to prejudge the issue; I will investigate it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Knight: I met the chief fire officer of Dorset on Friday last week to discuss the dispute. He told me that some of the modernisations that are mentioned in the Bain review have already been implemented in Dorset and other authorities in the south-west, and savings have been made accordingly. Will the employers, and will my right hon. Friend, when he takes new powers of direction over the fire service, assume that modernisation savings can be made evenly across the country?

John Prescott: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am well aware that in a number of brigade areas some changes have taken place—some with FBU agreement nationally and sometimes with disagreement. One of the difficulties that I have experienced is that when one negotiates with the FBU one cannot assume that what it proposes will be carried out at brigade level. I have found that to be a problem in Gold command, for example. I will certainly want to look at all the modernisation measures, which should apply to all areas. The brigades that have gone ahead and implemented some of the measures should not be disadvantaged in the settlement simply because they have carried out those proposals. We will take that into account.

Adam Price: Since the last time that the fire service was effectively nationalised was during the second world war under Herbert Morrison, the Deputy Prime Minister will appreciate that he is proposing a fairly draconian measure. Does he accept that it seems to fly in the face of the Bain report, which explicitly stated that the fire service cannot be run as a central command function? If the devolved Administrations indicate that they do not want to go down the centralising route, will he allow them to retain the existing arrangements? Finally, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), can the Secretary of State explain what possible advantage there is for the FBU in entering into negotiations, when it is repeatedly told that there is no room for negotiation and that the Government will veto any deal and impose their own will?

John Prescott: That does not seem to fit with the events, which I have watched closely. Before the FBU goes into discussions, it wants to lay down all sorts of conditions. The union stated in December that it wanted to go to ACAS and that nothing would be ruled in or ruled out, but it still will not walk in and talk. It has had days and days of talking, and a few minutes of face-to-face negotiations. That is not a good way to deal with matters. I always understood that each party went in and put its case to ACAS without ruling out any other party going in. The parties sat in different rooms and ACAS officials shuttled between them to try and find some agreement. It is not unusual for demands to be made of other parties. The role of ACAS is to try and find a way forward. The FBU has announced that if there is no prior agreement, it will not go to ACAS to discuss the matter. That is stupid. It is not acceptable and casts doubt on the union's real intentions.
	With regard to the decentralisation of powers, curiously one of the problems that I have is that I am trying to decentralise by taking powers away from me as Secretary of State under section 19, and the union is against that. We need to achieve a proper balance. I have said, and Bain said, that the Fire Services Act 1947 should be reviewed. I have informed the House that my judgment about many of the recommendations and the balance between them will be in the White Paper that I will shortly publish.

Jim Cunningham: We understand my right hon. Friend's predicament. He may well bring in legislation to compel arbitration, but he cannot compel agreement. That is the nub of the problem. Does he intend to impose Bain through arbitration or through legislation? Again, if he cannot get agreement, he will stack up major problems and create a great deal of bitterness. I say that with a great deal of sympathy for my right hon. Friend. I appeal to him to think carefully before he brings any legislation before the House.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of common sense. I have wrestled with the thought for a considerable time. I have been pressed from some parts of the House to introduce legislation immediately. I have never felt from my own experience, and neither does history teach, that legislation can force free people to do what they do not want to do. It is a human right to withdraw one's labour, and we have reinforced that in legislation in the House and under European conventions. We have to find a balance between all those considerations, particularly with regard to emergency services such as the fire service. Even there, if we try to force a deal on the fire service and it will not accept it, we will have another problem. I recognise that, but in my judgment people will come to the view that it is better to settle the dispute by negotiation.
	All I am asking is for the union to sit down and talk. I am not asking it to accept any details, nor are the employers. We just want to sit down and talk. All reasonable people would expect that. I am trying to provide the conditions for it to take place. There will be a number of weeks before we begin to discuss possible legislation, which gives the continuing possibility, after nine months of dispute, that some kind of agreement can be found. What I am doing is indicating that we cannot continue to tolerate the continuation of the dispute with tactics that are deliberately designed to drag it out, cost a great deal more and cause the greatest of inconvenience generally with the least inconvenience to the fire workers. In those circumstances, I have to say on the Government's behalf that that is not acceptable practice.

James Paice: The Deputy Prime Minister rightly referred to the fact that retained firefighters have continued to work. Indeed, as he well knows, in my part of Cambridgeshire and many parts of the country, the retained service normally provides all cover, regardless of strikes. The Retained Firefighters Union does not have negotiating rights, so negotiations are carried out on behalf of retained firefighters by the FBU. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, during the autumn, a provisional agreement was made on retained pay that would have resulted in a considerable reduction in income for a large proportion of retained firefighters? Given the sterling work that the retained service has continued to do in providing cover, does he agree that it would be astonishing if it were made the sacrificial lamb in the outcome of the talks?

John Prescott: The Government's view is that there should be a fair deal for everyone. Many of the retained firefighters are members of the FBU, which would claim the right to negotiate for them, but I am aware of the difficulties faced by those who are not members of the FBU and are not represented at the negotiating table. That was pointed out by Bain, who makes a number of recommendations about changing the structure of negotiation and discussions in the industry. We are considering those issues and I shall make a statement in the White Paper when we have reached our conclusions.
	If people decide to go on strike, it is their right to do so. People who decide not to do so—in this case, they belong to another organisation—have the right to work at their workplace, and we should express our appreciation. That is a judgment for individuals, but I am aware of the difficulties and we will address the issue in the White Paper.

Caroline Flint: I recently received a letter from a firefighter at Edlington fire station in my constituency in which he rightly pointed out that there has been modernisation in South Yorkshire, including the use of defibrillators and work with the community. He wanted reassurance that the Government acknowledge that there has been modernisation in certain parts of our fire service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to that firefighter, to the public and to everybody in the House, that prompts the question why, if it can happen in South Yorkshire, it cannot happen throughout the rest of the country?

John Prescott: One of the difficulties that we face is that different judgments can be made in different areas, whether on the central emergency control centres or defibrillators. That raises an important issue. Such matters should be subject to national decisions. The use of such equipment should be agreed in the industry between the unions and employers and implemented. As the general secretary has pointed out, sometimes a recommendation is made, but brigades do not implement it because they have a certain amount of authority. We will have to address that question. If we get a national agreement but a brigade says that it will not implement it—one of the problems that the process involves—we will have to do something about that. We will consider those difficulties in the White Paper. We want to reassure and thank those who have adopted modern methods that we think should be advanced in all areas and brigades. We should have a system in which that applies automatically, rather than in which single brigades make a decision about those important issues.

David Burnside: Those of us from Northern Ireland will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and give the legislation sympathy and scrutiny. Will he please give a commitment that the matter will be kept on a national level, not a decentralised one? It is important that it is debated, discussed and solved nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a firefighters' strike in coming weeks and months could seriously endanger life in this country? If we are going to war, one of the immediate reactions may be an increase in terrorism against the United Kingdom. The impact and threat of such an increase while firefighters are involved in a dispute will be to endanger life nationally. Will he try to solve the matter as soon as possible?
	The Deputy Prime Minister might like to know that I met the FBU on Friday. Its members on the ground are reasonable men whose own worst enemy is their leadership. The matter needs to be settled as quickly as possible and that needs to be done at a national level, as we are moving into very dangerous territory in terms of the possibility of war and the threat of terrorism.

John Prescott: I have made it clear to the House that I should like the dispute to end as soon as possible on agreeable terms. I am making an appeal that serious negotiations should take place and lead to conclusions. I have proposed that other actions be taken if that does not happen over time.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about the national issue, I referred to the Fire Services Act 1947, which was a United Kingdom measure. Indeed, at that time, the devolved Administrations did not exist and powers were not given to devolved authorities in different areas. The 1947 Act introduced a national requirement and I have to talk to devolved Administrations as much as other bodies to see how they feel about these matters. I have given them very quick notice—it is natural that I should do so—but I have reassured them that I will be having discussions. How we deal with the matter is a national issue, but if devolved Administrations feel that they want to deal with it differently, I must seek discussions with them.

John McDonnell: The Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer explicitly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), so may I be more explicit in asking it? If he takes the power to impose a settlement and the FBU continues to strike, is he now considering taking the power to withdraw the right of firefighters to strike? If so, many will see this as an attempt to provoke an all-out strike and an attack on trade union rights in this country.

John Prescott: That is quite the opposite of what I intend, but the hon. Member is known for exploiting different statements made in the House to bad effect. Let me make it clear to him: I have said time and again in this House that I do not think that the dispute can be resolved with legislation. I have resisted many of the claims that have been made by those who say, "Why don't you use anti-strike legislation or instruct the Attorney-General?" The hon. Gentleman is not always here, but if he reads the record, he will see that I have been saying that from time to time, and I believe it. All that I am doing today is saying that there must be an end to the negotiations. The dispute has now run for nine months, and I hope that it ends quickly, but if it continues, that will not be acceptable. In such circumstances, I will have a responsibility to say, "If you cannot come to an agreement and there is a deadlock, we cannot sit here and whine." I have a responsibility for public safety and to see that a deal is implemented. I hope that those circumstances do not come about and that we will not need the legislation that I am talking about. The matter might be settled tomorrow and I might not have to talk about it again. That would be good.
	If the hon. Member is asking, "What would happen if?", I point out that that is always the big question in politics. I hope that reasonable people will take into account the fact that we are trying to find a negotiated settlement and are providing more room for that to happen, but those involved will have to see that there is a timetable. If they choose not to do so, I will have to consider the circumstances. I know from my own experience that free people cannot be forced to work if they do not want to do so, but this is a matter of balance. I heard the same argument about prison officers, police and so on. [Interruption.] It did not lead to the circumstances to which he refers, although, presumably, that is what he predicted, as he does from time to time. In those circumstances, a judgment has to be made at the appropriate time. I am still ever hopeful that he will make a reasonable statement to reasonable men, rather than inflaming the situation, as he does from time to time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McDonnell should be quiet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can call every hon. Member who stands, but they must be brief and ask only one question.

Gary Streeter: Having sat in a green goddess for the first time on Friday in Plymouth—I admired it in a classic car kind of way, but saw that it was prehistoric, unsafe and completely unsuitable for firefighting work—may I press the Deputy Prime Minister to try to ensure that many more red engines are made available? After all, they are owned by the people of this country and not the striking firefighters, and he has repeatedly said that public safety is one of his primary concerns.

John Prescott: I had a similar experience when I rode on a green goddess in Leconfield in east Yorkshire. One admires the skills that are deployed in manoeuvring such old vehicles. We must give our armed forces the best facilities that we can for the job that we have asked them to undertake. Approximately 177 red engines are being used. There must be a balance between their deployment and that of the green goddesses. That is achieved in the way the armed services consider best and sufficient. We shall always try to fulfil their demands, but we currently have the balance that they requested.

Russell Brown: As a trade unionist, I am bitterly disappointed that we have reached the point of my right hon. Friend considering legislation. I ask him again not to listen to Conservative Front-Bench Members. They clearly want to do nothing but take the dispute to court to break it. It is interesting that they use phrases such as "stopping the strike." That can happen only through a negotiated settlement.
	I implore my right hon. Friend to look beyond the dispute at the Fire Services Act 1947. Does he agree that it bears no resemblance to the operation of the modern fire service?

John Prescott: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. I take no pleasure in coming here to discuss such a move; indeed, I do so reluctantly. Agreement about work and conditions should be between the two parties.
	At the time, people perceived the 1947 Act not as anti-trade union legislation but as a means of arbitration when two parties could not agree in the special circumstances that applied. It was fully supported by Labour and Conservative Members. However, that was more than 50 years ago, and people may feel differently now.
	Our recognition of the right to strike lies at the heart of the matter. I would think very carefully before taking it away from people. However, it is important that people who get into a dispute reach an agreement in negotiations. We have had nine months of negotiations, if they can be described as such, yet the claim is still 40 per cent. That is unacceptable and people must sit down and negotiate seriously.
	I am here today because there appears to have been a change of tactics—rather than a change of mind—and an attempt to drag matters out. In that case, I have to make a judgment and come to the House to present it. It is not a happy judgment for me, but I am doing what I believe to be right. I always told hon. Members that I would do that.

Patrick Mercer: I spent Friday with two watches at Newark fire station. As soon as the evening watch came on, there was a shout and the fire crew were out in an amazing and admirable 45 seconds. They got on to the A46 very efficiently. However, the town and the firefighters believe that there will be job losses and that Newark will become a day station with no night cover except for retained firemen. As far as I can ascertain, there is no basis for that in fact. I therefore beg the Deputy Prime Minister to dispel those rumours in as clear English as he possibly can, and to try to clarify matters without exacerbating the problem.

John Prescott: Another ex-Army type—they have always brought to the House some arrogance, which we enjoy from time to time.
	Local committees will decide matters that affect fire stations. Repealing section 19 of the Act gives responsibility for such decisions to local committees. The people in the area will therefore have maximum influence on them.
	Fire risk cover must be taken into account, and a proper balance must be struck between intervention and prevention. Again, the committee will make that judgment. I believe that that is right and that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome it.

Iain Luke: No one benefits from a prolonged firefighters' dispute, but does my right hon. Friend accept that many elements of the trade union movement will view his announcement with concern and, indeed, outrage? However, I hope that it will give time for thought. If the FBU returns to the negotiating table and embraces discussions on modernisation, will the Government find extra money in view of the contention that, in the past, firefighters were offered 16 per cent. over two years? Given the profound nature of the proposals in the Bain report, will the Government make a commitment to find extra money if the employers want to go down that road?

John Prescott: Let me make it clear that the 16 per cent. over two years was not agreed between the relevant parties, although I believe that it was discussed. We said that, as Bain pointed out, a settlement of 11 per cent. for two years and a possible agreement to extend that to three years would require a transfer of funds. It is therefore possible that the negotiations could have led to more than 11 per cent., but we never got to that point. I simply ask the FBU to sit down and discuss that. It claims that there will be redundancies and that fire stations will close. Why does it not sit down, negotiate and find out? If it finds that its judgment is correct, I assume that the members will walk out. That is called negotiating. I hope that they will not walk out, but that happens in negotiations.
	I understand my hon. Friend's point about outrage, but only a few months previously the rest of the local authority workers, who are paid from the same fund, got less than 4 per cent. a year for a two-year programme, yet the FBU asks for 40 per cent. Local authority workers feel outraged that 40 per cent. from the same fund could be regarded as justified. They believe that they are entitled to more, and they have a point. I have to strike a balance, and 4 per cent. and 40 per cent. do not balance properly.

Norman Lamb: Will the Deputy Prime Minister provide some clarity about the time scale to which he is working for introducing the legislation? When does he propose to publish a draft measure? Is he working on the basis that it will end the dispute or is it intended to deal with future disputes? I am not clear from his answers whether he intends to ban strikes as part of the agreement. Would he consider the alternative of moving towards an agreed no-strike arrangement? That might be an attractive way forward because there must be better ways in which to resolve disputes in emergency services than the débâcle so far.

John Prescott: I have some sympathy with the idea of a better way; I call it negotiations. It is a pity that we have not concluded them. However, we must bear it in mind that negotiations have taken place with the firemen for nearly 20 years when there have been no disputes. An agreement was reached 20 years ago. That is what people would like, but we are in the process of replacing the agreement with another. Although I have often made it clear that the Government consider all options—we must do that—rushing into strike legislation will solve nothing. If I impose a settlement that the FBU refuses to accept, further difficulties will ensue. However, I should prefer to face that. I am putting my faith in negotiations.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the difference when dealing with emergency services. The White Paper will deal with that point, which the Bain inquiry raised. My judgment is to ask the FBU to continue negotiations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how long legislation would take. That depends on the consultation, but I am talking about weeks, not months. However, weeks remain available for negotiations. I cannot therefore answer the hon. Gentleman. If I introduce legislation, hon. Members will want to debate it and any recommendations that flow from it. I cannot give an exact time, but we are looking at weeks, not months. The negotiations cannot go on and on in deadlock. I have a responsibility to act and I have given my best judgment today.

Andrew Robathan: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about the unreasonable actions of the FBU leadership, does he consider them, to quote Harold Wilson, "a small group of politically motivated men"?

John Prescott: They are a group of people who feel strongly about their negotiations and want to conclude an agreement. The leadership currently suggest that they want to follow the route of more industrial disputes; that is their right. However, I intend to introduce legislation in a specific period if the deadlock continues.

Victoria Climbié Inquiry

Alan Milburn: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Victoria Climbié inquiry.
	The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the chief inspector of social services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.
	Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Climbié for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbié cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.
	I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask: what exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?
	Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk, which we intend to publish this spring.
	Victoria Climbié was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted—as any parent would—was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.
	Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.
	The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is truly the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.
	Victoria's final days—in the depths of winter—were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.
	Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25 February 2000 at St Mary's hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.
	It is a shocking but sad truth that about 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, manipulative and secretive.
	What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered happened behind closed doors, in secret, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities or the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children like her.
	Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments—in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.
	Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan police. Despite being told that she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.
	Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham child and family centre, managed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Despite marking her case as urgent, it failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.
	Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face, and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The NHS did nothing to help her.
	Between April 1999 and February 2000, on more than a dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbié. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.
	As Lord Laming says,
	"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation . . . doing the basic things well saves lives . . . Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards."
	Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection, set out in the Children Act 1989, is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is, frankly, useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.
	Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm of course face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry,
	"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case."
	While public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbié. There were problems with staffing and with resources. In Haringey the council was spending substantially less than the standard spending assessment it had been allocated for children and families. In Brent the council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.
	Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.
	It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards, or proper training, or adequate resourcing, or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all of these things.
	In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as quality protects and sure start; new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.
	Alongside the fuller response that we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps I intend to take immediately.
	First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report, it will be for each employer to determine whether further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurance that standards are, indeed, improving.
	Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national policing plan. He has asked chief constables to review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their local policing plans.
	Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.
	Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of front-line professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the standards and status of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs, including a better focus on inter-agency training.
	Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House today that I intend to publish the first part of those standards, covering the care of children in hospital, next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.
	Fifthly, the report says that there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance that will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It runs to more than 1,500 pages and covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent., make it available in a single volume and update it regularly.
	Sixthly, more than half Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of those recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, those basic elements of good professional practice will be in place.
	Seventhly, the report says that there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practices. The Home Secretary and I have therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that those elements of basic good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.
	Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. The report says that, instead, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years, inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and better co-ordination, but neither exhortation nor legislation has proven adequate. The only sure-fire way to break down the barriers between those services is to remove them altogether.
	Fundamental reform is needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. Therefore, I am today inviting health and social services, and other local services such as education, to become the first-generation children's trusts. Those pilot children's trusts will mean that local services for children are run through a single local organisation.
	We will explore a range of models, including children's trusts, that could be led by local authorities and others, and that could be established as new public-interest organisations, drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation, but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structure—should be allowed to stand in the way. We will of course consider in the Green Paper Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes.
	Those reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen, and the whole Government share that determination. Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance.
	We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands, and it is what the Government are determined to do. I commend the Laming report to the House.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and his courtesy in making it available to the Opposition earlier.
	Clearly, this is an appalling human tragedy first and foremost, and it is right that we remember the feelings and sensitivities of Victoria's parents as we discuss the details of what needs to be done. That a defenceless child could be subjected to such unspeakable acts of savagery over such a long period brings shame on our society. Those who are brave enough to do so can only imagine the terror, pain and misery that she must have endured, but this is also a shocking tale of individual professional failure and systematic incompetence.
	During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children who were known to social services. None seems to have had much effect. We all agree, time after time, that it must never happen again, but it does. Lauren Wright, John Smith and Ainlee Walker are only a few of the large number of those who have been failed by the system.
	There are a number of questions that I want to raise with the Secretary of State, although I do not expect him to answer them in his response, as they cover important and sometimes conceptual and cultural issues that we need to examine in far more detail than is possible in the House today. Every report says that something must be done. Why will this one be different? How will the House be able to monitor progress in a truly transparent way so that this one does make a difference?
	Communication is the main problem among different agencies. How will that improve in practice beyond just setting up new structures? What role is envisaged for the greater use of information sharing and early detection? Intelligence gathering can succeed only on a local basis. What review of the Data Protection Act 1998 will the Government undertake to ensure that nothing stands in the way of the proper sharing of information?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what action has been taken against the social workers involved in this case to give us a guarantee that they are not still responsible for children? What progress has been made to fill gaps in social work, especially in London and the south-east?
	The Secretary of State did not touch on one subject: it is estimated that about 10,000 children in England and Wales are privately fostered—80 to 90 per cent. of them are west African—despite the Utting report identifying private fostering as
	"clearly an area where children are not being safeguarded properly, indeed an unknown number are likely to be seriously at risk."
	Will the Government be taking any action to regulate private fostering to approved lists of people only, having failed to include that reform in the Adoption and Children Act 2002? To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current classifications of "children in need" or "children in need of protection" militate against appropriate protection? What changes are to be made? In a case such as Victoria's, once a child is categorised as requiring family support, the child's need for protection falls from notice.
	If the status of social workers is being improved and more responsibility given, equally, what measures are being put in place to ensure that incompetent social workers are disciplined as toughly as other medical professionals? What does the Secretary of State think has been learned from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which placed a positive duty of care on parents to promote children's well-being? Do the Government favour a single system of referral and assessment to address needs—for example, child safeguarding teams proposed by the NSPCC along the lines of existing youth offending teams and sure start? Should sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 be amended to include police and GPs as agencies that should support the local authority when it is carrying out its duties in relation to children in need of protection?
	Despite what the Secretary of State said, the new police national plan 2003–06 lists child protection under the heading "other policing responsibilities". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement today reflects a change of mind on behalf of the Home Secretary about the importance that child protection will be given.
	Above all today we need to make sure that the changes recommended by Lord Laming and being introduced by the Government will allow us to get to a system in which we all know clearly where the buck stops. Professional failure on this literally fatal scale cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We welcome the concept of children's trusts, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be well aware that the devil will lie in the details, including budget sharing, which will be worked out later.
	I fully understand the difficulties faced by professionals in this very difficult area. I have been there myself. I can think of nothing that I have ever done professionally as stomach churning and terrifying as telling parents that I suspected them of having abused their child. However, the primary responsibility for professionals is to the child in their care, not the professional relationship with the carer, as it has been too often. Difficult though it may be, we need to encourage that cultural change in all the professionals who deal with children. "I'm too busy/didn't suspect it/didn't have enough resources" are excuses that we cannot allow to be tolerated.
	In the time available today, it is not possible to do justice to the detailed conclusions and analysis in Lord Laming's report. I hope that we will get a chance to debate those matters in great detail in Government time over the coming months. Whatever measures need to be taken must be taken, and quickly. The Conservative party will willingly give its support in this most justified cause.

Alan Milburn: I am extremely grateful for the tone and much of the content of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has said, and I shall try to respond to some of the detailed points that he made.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring said that there have been a lot of inquiries over the years. That is certainly true. There have been both statutory public inquiries such as the Laming report and more private inquiries into the deaths and abuse of neglected children. The hon. Gentleman asked what was different about this report and about what we could make different, and he also wondered whether any inquiry had resulted in change. I think that some of them did result in change. The Children Act 1989 is a prime example, and Lord Laming considers it the bedrock of the legislative framework for the protection of children in our country.
	However, I was very heartened to hear Lord Laming say on the radio this morning that the inquiry had already had an impact, even before publication of the report. I believe that he is right. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service has fundamentally restructured its child protection services. Quite rightly, it has brought those services under the aegis of serious crime, which is arguably where they should always have been housed. That is welcome, and there have been other changes in both the national health service and social services. We must build on those changes.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring asked whether we could be assured that there would be appropriate monitoring of change and improvement. That is one of the issues that we will need to consider extremely carefully as we craft the Green Paper. Lord Laming's principal recommendations concern the central issue of accountability—how we can ensure that, from top to bottom, the interests of the child always come first, and that the different agencies involved in providing care and sometimes treatment are fulfilling their responsibilities. In due course, the Govt will present proposals on that.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the disciplining of individual social workers. Some have been disciplined and others dismissed. However, Lord Laming makes a very strident point in his report when he states that front-line professionals—in social care, health care or the police service—failed to carry out the elements of good professional practice. Some have paid a price for that failure, but it is noticeable that the people in charge of some of the local agencies have not suffered a similar fate, and no consequences have been felt at any level of the organisations involved.
	People in charge of organisations at local level—whether they have political or managerial responsibility—need to examine the Laming report's conclusions very carefully indeed. As the hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said, they should also examine their consciences.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned gaps in social worker numbers. Haringey is the authority most criticised in the report, and it was charged for the longest period with caring for Victoria during her stay in this country. It had terrible problems with the numbers of locum staff and of vacancies among social workers. It took a conscious political decision—and I think that it was the right one—to invest more money in social services and to increase pay for social care staff. Those decisions have helped to plug some of the social work vacancies that Haringey was carrying. If one local authority can do that, others should learn the lesson.
	With regard to private fostering, Lord Laming has asked the Government to carry out a review of the relevant law. We are undertaking that review, and the conclusions will be part of the Green Paper.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what the Government were going to do in respect of incompetent social workers. It is worth placing on record that, overwhelmingly, social workers do a very difficult job very well. The temptation for people—not necessarily in this House but outside it—will be to point the finger of blame. In these circumstances, that is extremely easy. However, we must ensure that there is adequate support for social work staff, and that the right safeguards are in place.
	As far as safeguards are concerned, the new general social care council will, for the first time, regulate and register qualified social workers. That will be an important step towards establishing the sort of assurances sadly lacking in this case.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about national policing priorities. Ensuring that adequate child protection is in place is part of the violent crime priority, which is a national priority for the police service.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Woodspring made a very telling point when he said that, all too often, what happens in cases such as this is that the interests of the people with the responsibility for caring come before the interests of the child. In this case, that is graphically true. Time after time, Kouao was interviewed and spoken to. Her needs were assessed and she had frequent and continual meetings with social care staff and other staff in the caring professions. It is noticeable that at virtually no point did anyone bother to ask Victoria what was happening to her.
	That can be described only as a lamentable failure. We need to get the training and the relevant structures right, but most of all we must get right the culture of these vital public services. We have those services for one reason—to serve. None has a God-given right to exist. The interests of those services should lie only in serving the interests of the child. That is what we must ensure happens in the future.

Paul Burstow: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to see the report and his statement in advance. I associate myself and other Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the report and about the sensitivities involved in this tragic case.
	Reading through the report, I had a terrible sense of déjà vu. The same weaknesses encountered before led to the same mistakes being made, and they led to the same missed opportunities to do what was necessary to ensure that the nightmare of neglect and abuse described by the Secretary of State did not happen to Victoria. There is no quick fix, so may I ask the Secretary of State some questions?
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about rationalising and replacing a welter of guidance and documentation. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether that will include clarity about what is risk and what is harm? All too often, there is confusion about that, with different definitions being applied in different parts of the country.
	Will the Secretary of State say more about the children's trust proposals? The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposals in their pilot form because there is a need to explore new ways of integrating services locally. Will further guidance be published to assist local authorities in deciding whether they want to take the opportunity that he is offering them? Does he accept, however, that the boundaries between agencies will remain even when children's trusts are in place?
	Will the Secretary of State say more about the area child protection committees? Legislation alone is not enough, but does he agree none the less that all the agencies involved in an ACPC must have a statutory duty to take part? In too many places, they do not join in as they should.
	Lord Laming's recommendations referred to the need to move to a new system of safeguarding and promoting welfare and away from merely keeping registers. Can the Secretary of State ensure that everyone will turn up to child protection conferences and that the general practitioners and teachers are there? All too often, the key players do not take part.
	Recommendation 16 rightly refers to the need to address information sharing. Information must pass freely and confidentially between the agencies. The report proposes that the Secretary of State issue guidance. When will he do so? It should be issued as soon as possible.
	As the Secretary of State said, training is a key issue, but it can succeed only if we can recruit and retain enough staff. The chief inspector of social services has told us all that there is a serious crisis in the recruitment and retention of social workers. What additional steps are being taken, not least to reward experienced social workers who choose to stay at the front line to do their job and who really make a difference?
	The national agency proposed in the recommendations has many characteristics similar to those required in a children's commissioner. I hope that it can indeed become a children's commissioner. Will the Secretary of State end the consideration process and confirm that the Government will introduce a children's commissioner in England?
	As we look back on 30 years of inquiries into children's deaths, the milestones in the development of our child protection system have been marked, sadly and tragically, by the gravestones of children who suffered a nightmare of neglect and abuse. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the system is strengthened and resourced and that it delivers a better quality of life for all our children.

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and very much agree that there is no quick fix. However, one striking thing about the Laming report is that although Lord Laming, who has a wealth of experience as a former chief inspector of social services, recognises that some changes will take time, he has wisely put a time scale on some of the changes that he recommended. Although he realises that there is no magic wand that can be waved, he says that about 88 or 89 of his 108 recommendations should be capable of implementation in some shape or form within six months. That is why I took action as I did today. I have distributed the recommendations to local authorities and the national health service and written to them about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing as regards police services. We have to get the balance right and I think that we are capable of doing so. We can fix what can be fixed quickly while recognising that some of the structural and cultural changes will take time.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the revised guidance would include clarification about whether a child was at risk or at harm. I read the report in considerable detail and it is clear that sometimes there is—at best—confusion about whether a case comes under section 17 or section 47. If it is a section 47 case, it goes up the list of priorities, but if it is a section 17 case it is deprioritised. That is one of the issues that we shall need to address in the guidance and we shall look carefully at that.
	We shall issue guidance on children's trusts and an invitation to local authorities, the NHS and other organisations to make proposals. The trusts could take a variety of forms.
	In recent years, there have been a number of recommendations on the structure of the ACPCs—for example, that they should be placed on a statutory footing. We must now consider such recommendations in the light of Lord Laming's broader structural recommendations to ensure that we get the overall structural balance right. The ACPCs could provide an important focus for local agencies to come together locally. However, partnership works well only when it is real rather than nominal. Although things vary throughout the country, all too often there is an assumption—for example, in the NHS—that the committees are really the responsibility of social services and no one else. We must be extremely careful to understand that what Lord Laming says is not specifically addressed to social services. He is not addressing one part of the care system, but the whole care system. It is only if we get the whole system right that we shall avoid the problems that were encountered in this case.
	More needs to be done about recruitment. However, the case of Haringey—of all places—should fill us all with hope. Haringey had the worst record and, arguably, some of the worst services. Who would want to work in Haringey? Well, people are working there and they are doing so because the council took the decision to raise the status and the pay of the social work staff that it employed. That is a lesson that other local authorities should heed.
	Lord Laming makes recommendations about the children's commissioner, but housed within a particular national, regional and local structure. We shall need to consider carefully whether that makes sense when we make our considerations for the Green Paper.

Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members of the House have the first responsibility for dealing with these issues and that it is essential to hone our anger and concern about what we have heard today into a determination to transform children's services and ensure that such a scandalous chain of events never happens again? Does he also agree that the Government have a huge responsibility to face some of the difficult issues that have been around for such a long time? For example, we need to put children's rights at the heart of any agenda for children, to address the fundamental need for a children's commissioner for all parts of the United Kingdom and to address the important point that, under the law, children have less protection from assault than adults. We must deal with private fostering and invest thoroughly and comprehensively to ensure that all who work in services for children, especially in child protection services, have the status, pay and career prospects that they deserve.

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes some telling points. He referred to anger. Both the anger and the incredulity of Lord Laming and his advisers about what happened are crystal clear from the Victoria Climbié inquiry report. It is more than a sorry tale: it is repeated failure at every level. The constant assumption made in almost every agency and by almost every member of staff was that Victoria's needs were being catered for by someone else, somewhere else. As we now know, nobody was catering for those needs. As my hon. Friend says, we really must learn those lessons now.
	There are responsibilities both for local services and for national Government. The fact that we are publishing the Green Paper in the spring, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced some time ago, is a recognition across the whole Government that the existing structures, nationally and locally, need change. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised will of course need to be detailed in the Green Paper.

David Hinchliffe: Listening to my right hon. Friend's reasoned statement, I was struck by the fact that, 30 years ago, I had just started in local authority child protection social work, and we had recently had the Maria Colwell report on an appalling set of circumstances. I find it incredible that I am here 30 years later after 35 inquiries listening to more or less word for word the same story and the same sad, tragic picture. However, I have taken some comfort from the statement today in that communication between professionals has been a key element all the way along the line. As someone who has argued for integration of professionals at local level and co-location, I warmly welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend has made today.
	May I press my right hon. Friend on a more fundamental matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)? It is clear that physical punishment was an issue in this sad and tragic case. My right hon. Friend is looking at the policies of countries such as Sweden on delayed discharges and foundation hospitals. Will he also look at what other countries have done on child protection? Sweden acted to outlaw the physical punishment of children by parents 10 years ago, and while we have experienced at least one child death per week at the hands of parents and carers in the past 10 years, Sweden has had none. Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a matter of urgency?

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always worth listening to on these issues. He has campaigned long and hard for many years both before coming into this place and since he has been a Member of Parliament for better integration and co-ordination of services. There are important lessons that we need to learn from that.
	It is crystal clear from this and all too many other cases that services were simply pointing in opposite directions. Social services were doing one thing, the health service was doing another and the police were doing a third thing. The consequence of that is confusion: people are passed round the system and, unfortunately, there is intervention later rather than sooner. Those are issues that we need to address. However, I say in all candour to my hon. Friend that I am cautious about confusing what happened to Victoria Climbié with issues around smacking and the reasonable chastisement of children. What happened to Victoria was of a quite different order. I know that my hon. Friend knows that. He knows the Government's position on these issues. Of course we will keep them under review, but it is important to separate the extreme violence that happened to this poor child from the sort of issues that my hon. Friend raised.

Gillian Shephard: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today and his proposals to publish a Green Paper. He clearly recognises that the fundamental causes of the 80 deaths from abuse per year of vulnerable children are a lack of liaison between the relevant agencies and a lack of accountability. Both were clearly demonstrated in the tragic case of my constituent Lauren Wright.
	Does the Secretary of State intend to make the new guidance statutory? Is he in a position to say today—perhaps not—how children's trusts will improve accountability?

Alan Milburn: I know that the right hon. Lady has taken an active interest in these matters, not only in the case of Lauren Wright but in her previous guise as Education Secretary in the Conservative Government. She is aware that the current guidance is statutory. That is the problem. We have to get the right combination. Of course we have to have statutory guidance. Of course we have to have the right system of monitoring. Of course we have to have the right system of accountability. Of course we have to have the right system of training. Of course we have to make sure that we have decent local management who take responsibility rather than ducking it. Of course we have to have the right structures.
	Several colleagues on both sides of the House have asked what is so different about this situation and the Laming report. I believe that the difference is that we have a broad sweep of recommendations covering all the issues and a vehicle, in the Green Paper, by which they can be addressed. It is only if we get accountability, structures, training, funding and local management right that we will avoid some of the terrible problems that children down the years have had to face. I believe that we have an opportunity to do that. Children's trusts are a means to that end. I believe that they will improve accountability. One local organisation will be responsible for protecting vulnerable children and people will not continually pass the buck.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Laming report explicitly directs most criticism, and places most of the responsibility for what happened to Victoria, not on the front-line staff but on senior managers and councillors in the local authorities. Time after time, events such as this happen, senior managers get themselves a media adviser and we hear the same old interviews about lack of resources. In many cases, those people go on to even better and more highly paid jobs. I believe that one way to stop such events happening again is to make sure that senior people take the responsibility that they are paid to take.
	The practice of private unlicensed fostering, largely by west Africans, has gone on for a long time. At best, it causes all sorts of trauma. At worst, children are open to all sorts of abuse. It is time that the Government moved to close this practice down.

Alan Milburn: To make managers accountable there has to be a proper system of accountability from top to bottom. That is what Lord Laming addresses in his recommendations. We will consider those recommendations seriously because that form of accountability is not present in the current system.
	On private fostering, we will take extremely seriously the representations that have been made to us not just by Lord Laming but by others. However, let me strike one note of caution about reviewing the law on private fostering and the Victoria Climbié case. It is true that, legally, Victoria was being privately fostered. No one knew that, for one simple reason. Her great-aunt Kouao lied about who she was. She called Victoria "Anna" and said that she was her mother. Even if we had had changes in the private fostering legislation on the statute book, it would not have stopped the person responsible for caring for Victoria lying. She would have continued to lie.

Andrew Lansley: For Cambridgeshire Members, I am afraid that the painful recollection of the Rikki Neave case serves only to heighten our distress at what happened to Victoria Climbié.
	Substantial benefits may flow from the introduction of children's trusts, but will the Secretary of State consider in the Green Paper two consequences that ought to flow from that proposal? First, having a children's trust does not automatically remove professional demarcations and boundaries—they could persist inside one. Is there a case, therefore, for giving one professional worker, whatever their discipline, responsibility for the services provided to a child and the authority to draw together the relevant services within the children's trust and impose requirements on other services?
	Secondly, if one puts all the services within the trust, one makes the accountability clearer, but the service is unified and hence potentially more resistant to external scrutiny and more likely to cleave to a single explanation. Is it not therefore more important for there to be an external voice—if not that of the children themselves, then a children's commissioner—to speak on behalf of children from an independent, external standpoint?

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. On his latter point, we will address those issues as part of the Green Paper. On the first issue, I very much agree about professional demarcations and boundaries. The disaster would be to break down boundaries between structures and organisations but retain precisely the same boundaries between professionals. That is why it is so important that we have asked various professional bodies, local government and the training organisations to produce proposals on that. For example, I have never fully understood why the skills of health visitors and those of social workers cannot be put together to offer better support to families and children in times of trouble. We should be perfectly capable of doing that.
	The hon. Gentleman puts the accent on flexibility and partnership working, but that has to apply as much at the level of the individual professional in those services as at that of the individual services.

Shaun Woodward: The Secretary of State will be aware that, for 10 years, I have been a trustee of the charity Childline, which takes tens of thousands of calls each year from children who, mercifully, do not die, but many of whom suffer in silence and never reach social workers or anyone else for protection.
	Childline, along with every other major children's charity, has argued for a children's commissioner for England for a number of years. The Secretary of State spoke about culture. The problem is that civil servants, by and large, do not want a children's commissioner for England. If he wishes to tackle the culture of child protection, he will have to tackle the culture of Whitehall, which does not want to create a children's commissioner for England. Since every children's charity supports the creation of one, will he agree to change that culture in Whitehall? Will he act quickly to do so, because I believe that a children's commissioner would make a serious difference in protecting children?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although we all know that this matter is grave, deeply disturbing and complex, may I appeal for brevity in questions and answers, as that is necessary if I am to call every hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye?

Alan Milburn: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As for getting such things out into the open, it is very important that there was a public inquiry. Indeed, before he joined the Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was one of those who argued very strongly that a public inquiry should be conducted properly in the open, so that people could hear and see the evidence for themselves. That has been achieved.
	As for a children's commissioner, I understand the concerns and views of the organisation with which my hon. Friend is associated. Of course we will consider those issues in drafting the Green Paper. Again, let me say that it is very important that any structure or post that we put in place fulfils a function that will make a difference. Let us forget about making suitable gestures or getting the right symbolic policies. Symbolic policies do not save lives. What saves lives is good practice in social services offices, NHS hospitals and local police stations. That is the focus of the Laming report. Of course we have to ensure that we get the right combination between the national and the local, but let us remember where services are delivered: not in Whitehall, but in local communities.

Hywel Williams: I welcome the new three-year degree for training social workers, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is value in shorter, postgraduate qualifications for people with relevant degrees, as they would be more likely to attract people with life experience, whom we so desperately need to provide improved services?

Alan Milburn: Basically, we need both. We need people who have had a former occupation or those who have a suitable qualification to come forward. If we can achieve that on a postgraduate basis, so much the better, but the training has to be right to raise the profession's status as much as anything else and to ensure that we have the people to carry out this very difficult task. As I say, good social workers deserve to be valued, not vilified.
	We have to ensure that the training is right. That is why, for example, in our proposals for the new three-year social work degree, we say that no one will be able to go into post unless they have carried out 200 days of practice on the front line, so that, when they go into post, they are experienced in precisely the sort of difficulties that social workers face day in, day out. One of the tragedies of this case is that very inexperienced people were put into the most difficult position imaginable, and we have to avoid that in future.

Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the emphasis on increased training for all staff involved in child protection. However, it is not clear how those staff will be required to demonstrate their competence in child protection before they begin working with children. How will the Secretary of State ensure that all staff—not just social workers, but those in health care, the police and, indeed, those in education, who see many of those children day in, day out, at school—have the required skills, not just the training, to be able to fulfil their responsibilities?

Alan Milburn: As my hon. Friend rightly says from her own experience, it is important that the people who work in those difficult professions have suitable competence, not just when they start, but throughout their careers. That is why it is important that we are commissioning the review of training requirements to ensure that all those who have a responsibility for safeguarding the interests of children—whether in the police service, the social services or the health service—are properly versed not just in child protection procedures, but in child development, too. That will help to ensure the competence of those people, who do a difficult job, sometimes in pretty difficult circumstances.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome the statement. Will the Secretary of State say why he will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper, which might imply more urgency? As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, the tragic Lauren Wright case involved her constituency, but the senior social worker involved—the team leader—was a constituent of mine, and he did indeed resign. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is anything in the Laming report about the Lauren Wright case? We have heard a lot today about the failings of social services—morale is obviously battered in Norfolk—but we must get across the point, surely, that the overwhelming majority of social workers do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. What advice would he give Norfolk county council as it tries very hard to improve the recruitment and morale of social workers?

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I very much agree with it. I hope that the balance is struck appropriately in relation to the coverage of such issues, particularly the role of social workers. He asks why we will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper. We will certainly introduce proposals in the Green Paper that will be subject to rapid implementation, but it will be right to consult more broadly on other proposals, particularly if we propose far-reaching recommendations for structural change.

Julie Morgan: How will my right hon. Friend ensure that social workers on the front line will receive the supervision and support that they need to deal with such very difficult situations? That seems to be the key to this issue.

Alan Milburn: That is important, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, more is needed. We need people on the front line who are competent. We need management and leadership who demonstrate competence, and we need an accountability structure to ensure that. Those are precisely the issues that Lord Laming has been grappling with in his recommendations, and we shall consider those issues in the Green Paper.

Joan Humble: When my right hon. Friend is developing the new national structures, will he consider especially the need properly to track children and their families as they move around the country? He will be well aware that many families are attracted by the bright lights of Blackpool. Sadly, all too often, those families bring with them problems. They must not be lost in the system, and not only social services, but health services and the other agencies need to know that they are there.

Alan Milburn: I am pleased about what my hon. Friend said, as many of the points that have been made today highlight the role of social services. As we all know, however, vulnerable children require the support not just of social services but of a range of other services, too. I know that some might be tempted to point the finger purely at one part of those services, but that is not what Lord Laming identifies: he identifies a failure across the piece. He uses a graphic phrase, which is the right one: "widespread organisational malaise". That is precisely what is present in this case. We must deal with that for the future.
	In relation to issues such as identification, referral and tracking, my hon. Friend is right that there is a group of vulnerable children out there, and it is important that we get the balance right and make sure that issues of civil liberties and data protection are dealt with properly and appropriately. We must also have information systems, however, that are capable of identifying where the children are in the system to make sure that they do not disappear, whether in Blackpool or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety is undertaking some good work. A £24 million pilot project is taking hold in different parts of the country, and by the autumn we want to make sure that that sort of system is being spread throughout the rest of the country.

Jonathan R Shaw: In 1993, a report was made to the Government of the findings from a national inspection of private fostering. The author was the social services inspector, Lord Laming. In 1998, the Utting report, by a former chief inspector of social services, was published. We have now had a further Laming report, and we will have a further review. There are 8,000 to 10,000 children involved, many of whom have come halfway round the world, and fewer checks are done for them than for child minders. These children are among the most vulnerable, as report after report has stated. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my right hon. Friend issued a caution about private fostering: if we had a registration scheme, it would not necessarily have saved Victoria's life. I accept that, but does he accept that, given all the overwhelming evidence and the reviews presented to his Department, it would be one more safeguard for protecting vulnerable children?

Alan Milburn: In truth, there are mixed views. My hon. Friend cogently argues from one perspective on the issue, but there are other perspectives. I hear what Lord Laming said in his report today, and I know what William Utting recommended. It is therefore right and appropriate that, as the Green Paper will address in the round the issues of children at risk—I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that opportunity to get the system right in that respect—we consider the various views and recommendations in that context. That is what we plan to do.

Desmond Turner: One of my constituents who came to see me recently was the teacher who detected the first signs of stress in Maria Colwell in my constituency. I promised to pass on to the Government her suggestion that all professionals involved with children—nurses, social workers, doctors or teachers—should share a common social service practice module as a compulsory part of their training. That might go some way towards addressing the problem shown in all these reports, which is that, basically, one can have all the systems one wants, but if the people who operate them fail, through lack of quality of training or culture, nothing will succeed.

Alan Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect: teachers, police officers and others should be properly trained, but not in social services practice. They should be trained in child development, child protection and the safeguarding of children. If we genuinely want services in which there is not confusion and fragmentation but integration and co-operation, we must ensure that we have people who are capable of operating those services in that way. We must therefore have training that reflects those principles.

Debra Shipley: The failure to protect children shames all of us. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, which I support. There have been endless inquiries, and there will be a Green Paper in the spring. By May or June, another child will have died, and by the time the White Paper comes out, yet another child will have died. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the process will be speeded up and put high on the agenda? In terms of delivery, we must have one person who is accountable at a local level. That person should be the chief executive—I have senior legal advice on this matter, and have brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister. We also need co-ordination at ministerial level. Coverage by three Departments—the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office—is not good enough. Even with the best intentions, children are slipping between the cracks in provision, and they are dying as a result. I suggest that a Cabinet Minister should be made responsible for child protection.
	Finally, will the extra resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend be ring-fenced? For example, in my well-run borough of Dudley, child intervention happens at level 5, although, according to the Government's guidance, it should happen at level 2. Will the resources that he mentioned allow intervention in my constituency at level 2, which is necessary to protect children?

Alan Milburn: It must be right that we do not delay in doing anything that can be done without delay. That is precisely why we are taking action today: not just publishing a report but writing directly to those who have responsibility for leading these organisations, not only in local authorities but across the national health service, too. We are giving them a three-month deadline within which they must make sure that all the elements of good practice, which are basic common sense and which were simply not in place in Victoria Climbié's case, will be in place in the future.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend refers to the need to ensure that we have appropriate structures at national level. There is more that we can do in that regard. She should not, however, understate what has been done so far, such as the advent of the children and young people's unit and its work, and the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who has particular responsibility in that regard. On resources, again, we must get the balance right. Ultimately, the difference is that those of us sitting—or standing at the Dispatch Box—in the comfort of the House do not have to deliver a single service to a single child. The people who must do so are the people outside. Those are the people who should be empowered and held accountable, as a quid pro quo. That is why I happen to think it is right to have less ring-fencing rather than more. In the end, public money is involved, and those people must decide how to spend the money appropriately to serve their local communities, and they should be held to account stringently and rigorously for that. If we do that, we will get the right balance between national responsibilities and local ones.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to addressing this problem. Since the Maria Colwell affair in 1973, there has been a demonstrable failure to address it effectively. Will he clarify the respective roles of the proposed children's trust and the existing area child protection committees? Will he give an assurance that in future somebody at local level will be accountable, perhaps chairing a body that must legally own that particular responsibility, and that a statutory obligation should be placed on the agencies concerned that the people they send should be suitably qualified? Lastly, if something goes wrong, there should be a mechanism for a thoroughgoing and independent investigation, not a botched and obfuscated investigation as we had in Haringey when the Victoria Climbié affair first came to light.

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a succession of extremely important points. It is important that we learn from things that go wrong. The only way of doing so is to get the facts out into the open. That is why the report and inquiry have been so widely welcomed.
	I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments on the area child protection committees. He will see in the guide to children's trusts, which has been published today, that one of the forms that they could take, for example, is to group together all the services in the local area that perform functions relating to child protection, mental health services or wider children's services. The important point about that is that, once again, it provides an opportunity for local services, whether in the public, private or voluntary sector, to come together in a way that is appropriate to meet the needs of sometimes different local communities in different local circumstances.

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be indelicate to suggest that a fraction of the understandable compassion that we heard in the past hour for children in this country should be directed towards the traumatised children of Iraq? My point of order is this: what does it take in this House of Commons to get an emergency debate when we are on a motorway to war, which will end heaven knows where? Is not it desperately important for us to have a debate on a substantive motion on what is happening with the weapons inspectors? Millions of people outside the House think that it is high time that we had such a debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman hovers between a point of debate and point of order. He knows that there are ways to influence those people who are responsible for determining the business of the House, but the Chair is not one of them.

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, like many other hon. Members, I represent coastal communities that face severe trauma from losing their livelihoods and way of life as a result of European Union fishing quota cuts. You will also be aware that a written statement has been laid before the House and a statement has been made by the Scottish Executive today about compensation plans. Do you know whether the Minister with responsibility for fisheries intends to come before the House so that hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing communities as I do, can question, cross-examine and scrutinise those proposals, including the lack of an application for EU match funding, which may help many thousands of my constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a fair amount of argument. The Chair has no intimation of such a statement, but the relevant Department is due to answer questions this week. That may or may not provide an opportunity for him to pursue the matter.

Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) expressed his concern on a point of order about the withdrawal of a question tabled in my name. He suggested that it had been withdrawn as a result of pressure placed on me. May I explain to the conspiracy theorists that the reason is much more mundane? It is simply that the bmi plane was delayed. The fact that the relevant Minister told me that he had arranged for that delay and the delay of the subsequent British Airways flight as well was simply an attempt at humour on his part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) left his remarks open to the possibility of a perfectly simple explanation—although probably not as simple as that one.

Mark Simmonds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I require your assistance and guidance. Yesterday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council delayed the decision on extending sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his regime. Tomorrow, EU ambassadors meet, but that forum does not have legal powers to extend sanctions; only the Council of Ministers can do that. The next Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting is not until 24 February, which is six days after the present sanction regime expires.
	Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, bring pressure to bear to insist that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to explain his attitude to Mugabe's invitation to Paris, and to explain what procedures and mechanisms are being followed to ensure that sanctions are renewed prior to the key date of 18 February? If they are not renewed, Mugabe will be at liberty to travel not only to Paris, but to London, which would not be acceptable to the Government or the House while people starve and suffer brutal retribution at the hands of his thugs in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not engage too much in the substance of debate, however strongly he feels about the subject. He must know that the Chair has no power to command a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. He may, however, find an opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps even at Prime Minister's questions.

Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill would remove the existing restrictions placed on the employment of non-UK nationals in civil capacities under the Crown. In place of the current system, it would open up all civil employment under the Crown to applicants of any nationality, apart from those positions that would be restricted to UK nationals under rules made by the Minister for the civil service, or by another Minister or other Crown official to whom he has delegated the power to make such rules. Before dealing with the detail of the Bill, let me make it completely clear that it does not deal with asylum, immigration or work permits, and it does not affect the requirements for non-UK nationals to get leave to remain and to work in the UK before they can take up employment.
	The rules restricting the employment of foreign nationals by the Crown have their roots in legislation decided 200 years ago. The Act of Settlement 1700 provides that no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominions thereto belonging, should be capable of enjoying any office or place of trust, either civil or military. That prohibition has been amended over the years and does not apply to Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the Irish Republic or to British protected persons employed in a civil capacity.
	Section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 provides that no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the civil service of the state. Contrary to popular belief, an alien is not a funny green man from Mars with a TV aerial sticking out of his head, or a character devised by Mr. Steven Spielberg. Alien is defined in section 51(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as a person who is not a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
	During the second world war, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. That was replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955, under which the prohibitions were relaxed so that aliens could be employed if they were either appointed in a country outside the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a capacity appearing to the Minister to be appropriate for aliens, or employed in accordance with a certificate issued by a Minister with the consent of the Minister for the civil service. So either no suitably qualified UK nationals are available to do the work or the alien must possess exceptional qualifications or experience to do the job. Certificates last for five years and must then be renewed.
	For the year 1999–2000, the number of persons employed under those certificates was a mere 20. The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 amended the law to allow nationals of member states of the European communities, their spouses and certain children to take up civil employment under the Crown, apart from public service posts as defined by the European Community treaty. The rights of nationals of member states of the European communities were extended to nationals of member states of the European economic area by section 2(1) of the European Economic Area Act 1993. Against the background of a possible legal challenge to the European Court of Justice, further changes were made in 1996 to put Irish and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as other non-UK EC nationals. An amendment to the civil service management code was made to restrict Commonwealth and Irish nationals from being employed in posts that were reserved for UK nationals.
	The effect of the existing rules, therefore, is that foreign nationals may be employed abroad in any civil post under the Crown, which includes the diplomatic service if the Minister considers it appropriate. However, for civil employment under the Crown within the UK, Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons and nationals of member states of the European economic area may be employed only in posts that are not public service reserved posts, and nationals of all other countries may be employed only in UK non-reserved posts if one of the very rarely issued certificates is in force.
	Although 75 per cent. of civil service posts in the UK are available to Commonwealth, Irish or EEA nationals, the remaining 25 per cent. requiring the special allegiance of public service posts are entirely reserved for UK nationals. More posts are reserved than is operationally necessary, but that is unavoidable due to the present definition based on the EC treaty. Attempts to define public service posts must follow EC case law and are subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice.
	The net effect is that it is a criminal offence, even if done by mistake, to employ a non-Irish EEA national in a public service reserved post; to employ any alien in any civil service post at all, apart from the tiny number of certificated exceptions, and although it is legal to employ in a non-reserved post the alien spouse of an EEA national living in the UK, under the freedom of movement provisions, it remains an offence to employ the alien spouse of a UK national.
	That all sounds very legalistic and technical, but I believe the anomalies can best be illustrated by examples. As I have said, the Bill will not change the rules on asylum and immigration in any way. In my constituency, like many others, we now have long-standing communities, for example from Iran and Iraq, mostly comprising highly skilled professionals, many of whom were senior public servants in their home countries, who fled persecution by those dictatorships many years ago. They, and their children, who may know no other country, are entirely barred.
	In Hendon, we have Chinese and Japanese communities, and also UK citizens married to people from those countries, which are important trading targets. Assuming that they retained their own citizenship, those Chinese and Japanese people are barred from, for example, jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry, but if their spouses were French, rather than British, they would not be barred.
	A Turkish Cypriot is eligible for a non-restricted post, but a Turk is not. The notorious Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist cleric who most people think should be kicked out of this country, if not put in jail, has UK nationality and could be employed in any post, although I doubt that he would want to apply, and, if he did, I assume that he would not pass the interview. However, the American national widow of a British victim of 11 September would be entirely excluded from Government employment.
	As in so many things, the police service is ahead of the game. I first raised this nationality anomaly in the context of the police regulations over two years ago, and I am pleased that it has been dealt with in the Police Reform Act 2002. Subject to proper immigration status and competence in English, and with certain reservations for sensitive posts, nationality is no longer a barrier to joining the police, and that has made a great difference to police recruitment.
	In our country, some 850,000 residents of working age are not UK, Commonwealth or EEA citizens, and are thus excluded entirely. In London, one of the world's great, diverse cities, 350,000 people, or 9 per cent. of the working age population, are entirely excluded, not just from the higher echelons, but even from applying for the most junior social security clerk's job. It is no wonder that we have difficulty filling civil service jobs in the capital, when so many of my fellow Londoners are entirely out of the equation.
	My Bill will tackle those bizarre and discriminatory anomalies by sweeping away the existing complex, interlocking legislation, and replacing it with a simple amendment to the Act of Settlement, so as not to prohibit the employment of any person in any civil capacity under the Crown, and at the same time empowering the Minister to make rules in respect of nationality requirements for certain categories of posts, which I envisage as those where it is clearly necessary, and in the national interest, for the job to be reserved for a UK national, which is about 10 per cent. of the total. It is expected that the Bill would open up 90 per cent. of all posts to selection on merit, regardless of nationality, enabling us to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of the society that it serves. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Iain Coleman, Mr. Andrew Love, James Purnell, Linda Perham, John Austin, Clive Efford, Mr. Stephen Pound and Keith Vaz.

Crown Employment (Nationality)

Mr. Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 48].

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 29th January to attend the funeral of Richard Buchanan, JP, Member for Glasgow, Springburn, from 1964 to 1979.—[Gillian Merron.]

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Railways and Transport Safety Bill

[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 18th December 2002, relating to London Underground PPP: New Developments, and supplementary memoranda from Transport for London and the Department for Transport, HC 200-i (typescript available in the Vote Office).]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will allow us to take important steps to improve the safety of transport. It will set up a rail accident investigation branch; it will introduce new alcohol offences in relation to marine and aviation activities; and it will create an independent police authority for the British Transport police. The Bill contains other measures, which will help to improve the safety of transport, and it will make minor amendments and additions to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in relation to the tube. I shall deal with each of those matters in turn to show how the Bill fits in with measures that have already been taken to deliver a safer and more reliable railway.
	Part 1 makes provision for a rail accident investigation branch with responsibility to investigate rail accidents, including accidents on the tube. Clause 3 enables Lord Cullen's recommendations to be implemented by establishing such a branch, which will act independently of the industry and its regulators and carry out its investigations openly. It may help if I explain briefly why it is necessary.
	Following a railway accident, it is necessary to find out as quickly as possible what caused the accident and to enable remedial action to be taken as soon as possible. That can happen now, but we believe that the present system needs to be improved in line with the recommendations of the Cullen report following the Paddington rail crash. At the moment, after a rail accident the police help the rescue operation and secure the site, and after that their interest in is investigating any criminal acts. The Health and Safety Executive inspectors, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, also attend the site because of their health and safety interest. They investigate the cause and, if appropriate, they will prosecute any breaches in respect of health and safety.
	At the moment, we do not have any one body with sole responsibility for finding out quickly what went wrong and why the accident happened without attempting to attribute blame. That is necessary because, very often, lessons need to be learned quickly. That is what happens now in the case of an air or marine accident, and it works well. Lord Cullen was right to recommend that the Government set up a rail accident investigation branch along the same lines. Following the accident at Ladbroke Grove near Paddington, Lord Cullen recommended that such a branch be established along similar lines to the aviation and marine accident investigation branches, and that is what we are now doing.

John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State explain why, in the case of motor vehicles, extra speed is dangerous and we ought to have more limits on speed, but in the case of the railways, we ought to urge trains to go faster and faster? Is not it the case that as trains cannot steer out of the way of danger and cannot brake very well, extra speed will cause more accidents?

Alistair Darling: The situation is a little more complicated than that. There are obvious differences between rail travel and road travel. Generally speaking, trains run a lot faster than cars, but provided they have the right safety equipment, such as signalling and braking power—

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I should like to finish this point before I give way to my hon. Friend.
	Provided that trains have the right signalling, the right braking power and other safety mechanisms, they can run very fast. Indeed, passenger trains in this country have been running at 125 mph for many years now, to a large extent without incident, and trains in other parts of the world, such as the TGV in France, run at even higher speeds. Provided that the right safety precautions are taken, there is no reason why trains should not travel at those speeds.
	Cars are rather different, for obvious reasons. They run in a different environment, and all the evidence shows that, depending on the conditions, cars that are going too fast can put drivers and other road users at risk. With respect to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), there is a substantial difference between trains running at speed on the railway and cars running at speed on the roads.

John Bercow: rose—

Alistair Darling: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) first.

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend earlier. To reinforce his point, the Shinkansen system in Japan has been running at very high speeds for many decades without a single fatality.

Alistair Darling: That is right. Those trains are designed to run at high speeds and they have the necessary braking systems and track signalling.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alistair Darling: If we are to have a debate about the merits of cars and trains running at high speed, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).

Alan Simpson: I seek my right hon. Friend's guidance about braking power. He is right to point out that Cullen made two proposals for massive structural change. One relates to the investigation of accidents and the other to the avoidance of accidents. The European model that my right hon. Friend mentioned is premised on the introduction of the European railway traffic management system for braking, or ERTMS. That was also a central point of Cullen's recommendations. The suggestion was that the regulations for the introduction of that system should be in place by 2004, and that all trains capable of travelling at more than 100 mph should be equipped with the new system by 2008. There seems to be an important gap—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long an intervention.

Alistair Darling: I shall come on to train protection, and, if my hon. Friend does not mind, I would like to do so at what I consider to be the right point.

John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: Well, since the merits of fast cars and fast trains are not included in the Bill, I shall give way just once more, and then I want to make some progress.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The intentions behind the Bill are laudable and we all hope that, in practice, its effects will be beneficial. However, does he not think it noteworthy that a Bill that contains 110 clauses and seven schedules appears to contain no fewer than 73 references to regulation? Could we not have had a better idea of what the content of those regulations might be, and can he at least tell the House now whether they will be subject to the negative procedure of the House, or to its affirmative counterpart?

Alistair Darling: That sounds to me like an extremely good bid to participate in the Committee stage of this Bill, when all these issues can be explored at length over several weeks.

John Bercow: indicated dissent.

Alistair Darling: Perhaps some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would be very pleased to see him consigned to a Committee for several weeks. The making of regulations is not uncommon in this regard, but these issues can be discussed in Committee. The point that I was going to make before the intervention of some 10 minutes ago is that widespread support exists for setting up the rail accident investigation branch—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alistair Darling: I want to make some progress, but I promise every hon. Gentleman sitting in the House, given that there are not that many of them, that I will give way in due course.
	The fact that I think that this is the right thing to do is based on the experience of the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch, both of which have worked very well since they were set up. The former body was set up in 1922 and the latter in 1989, and although they operate in different ways, they have been extremely effective in getting to the bottom of what happens in an accident, without attributing blame. Moreover, they have been able to reach conclusions infinitely more quickly than does the current system in respect of the railways, and on that basis I hope that this proposal will be accepted on both sides of the House.

James Clappison: In framing his proposals, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the experience of bereaved families such as those involved in the Potters Bar railway accident? Almost nine months after that accident, those families are still waiting for an early acceptance of responsibility, and for an authoritative and full explanation of what took place. Does the Secretary of State agree that such explanations assist in the grieving and healing process for such families?

Alistair Darling: I am very much aware of the keen interest that, for obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman takes in the Potters Bar accident. The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible. That is one of the things that many of the relatives of those who lost their lives in that crash, and many of those who were injured, want to know as quickly as possible. So the setting up of the RAIB will be a major step forward, and it will speed matters up far more than does the current system, under which a very long time often elapses before we find out what happened and why.

Brian H Donohoe: Although I welcome these proposals, we must consider the fragmentation of the industry, which the Transport Committee has examined. Given that safety is of paramount importance, I wonder whether the Secretary of State's proposals go far enough. Should we not combine all the agencies that he identifies, so that a single agency can look after safety?

Alistair Darling: No, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend's final point. It is important to recognise that the two existing branches operate in different ways partly because of the characteristics of the industry. For example, in investigations undertaken by the air accident investigation branch, the manufacturer, air traffic control and everybody concerned are usually anxious to get to the bottom of what happened very quickly, because it may be necessary to send instructions around the world in respect of the operation of particular aircraft. On marine accidents, a slightly different approach is often taken, and the industry is structured in a different way. It has been put to me by the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch that much of their expertise and specialism might be lost if they were merged into a single body.
	I therefore think it better to establish the rail accident investigation branch and to allow the three branches to continue. If a compelling case is made in future for bringing them together, we shall look at it, but at the moment—given what I know about how they work and the nature of what they have to deal with—we would lose a lot more by setting up a single branch, rather than continuing with the existing system. What is striking about the air and the marine branches is that both work very well and seem to be highly successful; indeed, other countries throughout the world look at them and ask how they can do the same. If something works, it is best to leave it well alone.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend mentions the legacy of the rail industry, and for the reasons that he gives there is a great need for technical resources in order to carry out investigations quickly. Does he foresee that the new branch will have its own technical resources, or will it procure them from places such as the former research station at Derby, the facility through which British Railways Board built up the expertise to which he alludes?

Alistair Darling: The answer to that is probably a bit of both. My hon. Friend is probably aware of how the air accident investigation branch works. It has its own technical back-up in Farnborough, but in carrying out investigations it is heavily dependent on outside bodies. No one branch could include the expertise necessary to consider every aspect of a train incident, for example. I am certain that, from time to time, the new branch will need to go to outside bodies to get the expertise that it needs, and that is what people would expect.

Linda Perham: The Secretary of State mentioned accidents on the tube, and he will probably agree that it would have been useful if this measure had been in place when Saturday's accident happened. My constituents and I use the Central line a lot; indeed, there were 800 people on the train in question. We certainly need to look at accidents on the tube rather more seriously than we have in the past.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Had the RAIB already been in existence, the chief inspector would probably have decided to look at Saturday's accident. As it is, we are a considerable way down the line in finding out what happened on the tube on that day, and the causes of that accident are becoming fairly clear. As my hon. Friend doubtless knows, London Underground is in the process of deciding what needs to be done to put trains back on the Central line. It clearly wants to be sure that it has identified exactly what happened, and to take appropriate remedial action, before restoring the trains. However, my hon. Friend is right, and the new branch, had it been in existence, would have wanted to get involved.

Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mike Gapes: rose—

Alistair Darling: I shall give way in order of seeing: first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).

Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to learn that my right hon. Friend is committed to allowing interventions from both genders in this House. I strongly endorse what he says about the London underground, and I realise that inquiries into the most recent accident are ongoing. However, it is not the case that as far back as the summer of 2001, when a potentially very serious accident occurred in which four trains became blocked in a tube during the hottest day of the year, London Underground's internal inquiry found that the failure was one of command and control? Indeed, some reports on the most recent accident on the Central line point the finger at the same fault. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do indeed learn from such mistakes, and that London Underground's current management is urged to make public such inquiries?

Alistair Darling: I spoke to the managing director of London Underground this morning, and he agreed that the findings of the inquiry should be made public, which is the best thing to do. All inquiries should be made public so that people can see for themselves what lessons can be learned. It would not be right—and possibly I would be out of order—to go through what I know and what people believe happened on Saturday, but I can assure my hon. Friend that an inquiry is being held. As soon as its conclusions are known, I hope that London Underground will make them public. At the moment, however, further investigations need to be carried out.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will be aware that the implications of the accident on the Central line are serious for people who commute to work in central London from east and west London. He will be aware that it has been predicted that it could be at least several weeks before the Central line is operating properly. In those circumstances, will he join me in calling on the Mayor of London to delay the introduction of congestion charging until the Central line is fully operational; otherwise there will be continued chaos and pressure throughout east and west London as a result of the crash?

Alistair Darling: No doubt, the Mayor of London will want to consider that in relation to the new scheme. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the loss of the Central line will have a major impact on commuters who normally use it, but I believe that he would agree that it is important that London Underground identifies correctly the cause of the accident, then makes sure that it takes the right remedial action before trains are put back on the track.
	If it is all right with hon. Members, I should like to make progress and return to the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). It is important to remember that safety is not an add-on extra—it must be seen as an essential part of every activity, indeed every decision, every day on the railways. The new branch will help, but we must ensure that the right management and controls are in place, particularly for maintenance. As I have said before, the Strategic Rail Authority has provided the industry with strategic direction, and under its leadership different parts of the industry have worked together and have been able to get to grips with difficult problems that need to be resolved.
	Maintenance is critical to safety, which is why Network Rail is making a number of fundamental changes to the way in which it controls maintenance, so getting a much-needed grip on it. We must ensure that there is accountability for what happens, and certain steps are essential if safety on the railway is to be improved. Under Railtrack, as the House will know, decisions about maintenance were farmed out to other companies in too many cases. There was no end-to-end responsibility or accountability, but that is now changing. Network Rail is operating in the public interest, and is putting safety and reliability first. In future, Network Rail will decide what work is done and how it is done. Critically, it will make sure that the work is done properly, because rigorous control of maintenance is essential for safety, as well as making good business sense. As existing maintenance contracts end, Network Rail will decide whether to extend existing arrangements or to tender new contracts to take the work back in-house, as it will do on the route between Reading and Paddington, for example. Contractors will only be appointed when Network Rail thinks that that is the right thing to do. However, whatever it does, it will ensure proper supervision of work from start to finish, which is essential and will meet demands from Members on both sides of the House for proper supervision and accountability in maintenance work. In addition, the franchising arrangements that are being overhauled will allow for tighter management of train services and ensure that some of the deficiencies left over from privatisation are finally tackled and dealt with.
	With the changes that we have now made, we have the means to manage the railway, but that needs to be underpinned by substantial investment. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South about safety. Rail investment in real terms will be more than three times as much as it was in the decade leading up to 1997. Indeed, spending will double in the four years between 2001 and 2005, and will buy new, better and safer rolling stock—there is almost £1 billion-worth of new rolling stock now on the track, and more is on order—will help to pay for the west coast main line and other improvements and upgrades, allowing for safer and reliable travel, and will pay for the train protection warning systems that are now being installed.
	I can tell the House that train protection warning systems have been installed on 97 per cent. of trains and 76 per cent. of the necessary tracks. The programme is well on the way to completion. By the end of this year, the rest of the work agreed with the Health and Safety Executive will be complete, and a warning system will operate on all trains. There are, of course, some parts of track where a warning system has little or no safety benefit so, with the HSE's agreement, one will not be installed there. However, on the great bulk of track, all the work agreed with the HSE will be completed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South asked about the European position. There are three levels of warning system in Europe. Level 1 uses line-side signals and, although it could be installed in this country, it would restrict capacity on busy lines. It is fitted on a comparatively small number of lines in Europe, and its use is not widespread. Level 2, which is a slightly more sophisticated version, uses transmission-based signalling—it is installed on the train instead of on the track—and would allow increased capacity. However, the House needs to be aware that level 2 of the European safety system works only on a limited number of lines, including the line between Berne and Olten in Switzerland, which does not have any junctions and has a limited number of sidings. The problem with Lord Cullen's inquiry is that the learned judge was led to believe that there was a system in Europe that was tried, tested and working and could be installed on trains in this country. That is not the case.
	The level 3 system in the long term has a great commercial and safety advantage, as it can operate on trains and monitor their progress. No doubt, one day it will be extremely useful, but the difficulty is that it is not in use anywhere at the moment. The systems put before Lord Cullen have the disadvantage that even the basic level is not in widespread use in Europe and would lead, if used here, to restrictions in the number of trains that we could run. The more sophisticated and advanced level 2 system operates on one line in Switzerland with no junctions—we do not have many lines like that—and level 3, as I said, does not exist in operation. For those reasons, I believe that we are right to ensure that the train protection warning system, which can stop trains travelling at comparatively high speed, is installed. As I told the House, 97 per cent. of trains and 76 per cent. of necessary track have already been fitted with the system.

Alan Simpson: Can the Secretary of State clarify a point about high-speed trains and safety beyond the 70 mph limit of the train protection warning system? What safety protection mechanisms will be put in place on high-speed trains, as we clearly have to plan for their safety as well?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right that the basic train protection system will prevent trains from travelling at more than 70 mph. The train protection warning system plus, as it is known, will stop trains that are travelling at 100 mph. If a train is going faster than that, what happens will depend on a number of things, including signalling. That is usual. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend and to the House generally is that if there was in Europe a system that was better and ready for use, of course the Government would be prepared to consider it. The problem is that when comparing the railways in Britain with railways in continental Europe, we often find that we are dealing with completely different structures and different sorts of railways. It is unfortunate that it was suggested to Lord Cullen during his inquiry that there was an off-the-shelf system ready to be adapted, because it simply does not exist. By contrast, the train protection warning system does exist. Indeed, I can tell the House that the number of signals passed at danger is at the lowest level since records began. That can be attributed to two factors—first, the train protection warning system will simply stop a train and, secondly, drivers, and the industry generally, are paying greater attention to the need to observe the signals and to react appropriately.

Don Foster: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's decision that it is sensible to wait for ERTMS level 2, rather than to rush ahead with ERTMS level 1. However, can he reassure people that TPWS and TPWS plus, although designed to work for trains travelling at up to 70 mph and up to 100 mph respectively, will significantly slow down trains that are going even faster than that, so that, in the event of their passing a signal at danger, the chance of there being a serious accident is minimised?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right—we are in complete agreement on that. If he would like to modify the press release that he put out earlier today to take account of that agreement, I should be grateful to him. That would save me having to put out a rebuttal of the Liberal Democrats' position.
	I turn to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the British Transport police. I hope to be able to cover it in fairly short order, because it is not particularly controversial.

Graham Brady: rose—

Alistair Darling: Or maybe it is.

Graham Brady: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from the powers of investigation, will he address the point that arises in relation to clause 7(1)(b), which appears to provide investigators with a pretty open-ended power of entry to domestic dwellings? Several hundreds of my constituents live alongside railway lines. I cannot see why a provision for a warrant would not be appropriate to protect people's privacy and property.

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to be included in the Committee of Selection's nominations for the Committee on the Bill, that is a point that he may wish to pursue. I agree that the granting of permission to enter people's property should be used sparingly. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity that will be afforded to him when the Bill is in Committee to ensure that it is sufficiently tightly drawn to avoid unnecessary intrusion but still allows the investigation branch to carry out its work properly. In the past, investigators have sometimes found that their progress and ability to find things out quickly have been stymied because they could not get access. Without saying that that would happen, there are occasions where we must bear in mind that somebody might seek to conceal something, and it is important that investigators should be able to get access as quickly as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, the Committee is the place for him to be.

Lawrie Quinn: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to part 3, I want to ask him a question about part 1. Will he and his officials—if not now, before the Bill reaches Committee—consider the need for definitions as regards what is an accident and what is an incident? As someone who spent 19 years working in the railway industry, I know that that is an important issue. I guess that the branch would declare whether it was an accident or an incident, but it would be helpful to the work of the branch to include such a definition in the Bill.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend will no doubt have looked at the Bill, and will be aware that it gives a fair amount of latitude to the chief inspector as to what he investigates. In some cases it would be mandatory; in others there would be a discretion. A similar situation applies in relation to the air and marine branches, both of which have that latitude. If the chief inspector sees something, or has something reported to him, that suggests that there might be some public interest in investigating it, he can do it. Of course, the Government are open to suggestions as to how the Bill could be improved if necessary.

Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: Yes, then I shall move on to part 3.

Michael Clapham: I refer the Secretary of State to the fact that at the present time the provisions of the Health and Safety Executive and RIDDOR—the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations apply. Does he believe that those regulations, which call for the reporting of dangerous occurrences, could be a help in defining what is an accident and what is an incident?

Alistair Darling: That is possible, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) a moment ago, there is sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate. The circumstances that might lead to his investigation would depend on the information that he had before him, and existing health and safety legislation would be of help. Again, if hon. Members feel that the situation could be improved, of course the Government are open to their suggestions.
	Part 3 relates to the British Transport police, and, as I said, I can deal with it in short order. A modern police service should be accountable to an independent police authority. Clause 17 allows that to be established. At present, the SRA appoints the board, but it would be better if the board were independent, and the Bill makes sure that it is. It also makes sure that the police force no longer relies on contracts with different operators as a basis for its jurisdiction. Clause 29 puts the British Transport police's jurisdiction over the railways in England, Scotland and Wales on a clear and wholly statutory basis for the first time in its history. That is a welcome step forward.
	As a matter of principle, we believe that the railway industry should pay the costs of policing services. We also believe that the same approach should apply to the Health and Safety Executive, so the Bill will enable the HSE to levy costs from its rail-related activities on the rail industry. For the industry, that has the advantage that it will know up-front how much it has to pay.
	I shall deal briefly with part 2, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who speaks for the Liberals, expressed such great interest in the matter. Part 2 provides that the Office of the Rail Regulator should be restructured. The rail regulator is working well, but we want to take this opportunity to bring the railways into line with other regulated industries, replacing the individual regulator with a regulatory board, which is consistent with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force.
	The Bill restructures the existing Office of the Rail Regulator, creates a statutory regulatory board in place of the regulator, building on the existing advisory board that he already has, and enables a wide range of experience and views to be brought to decision making. We will not make the change before mid-2004, which will enable the regulator to complete the useful work that he is doing in reviewing access charges.
	Parts 4 and 5 deal with drug and alcohol limits in relation to marine and aviation activities.

Louise Ellman: What impact does my right hon. Friend expect the provisions of the Bill to have on incidents such as the one currently being investigated by British Airways, in which a pilot who was allegedly affected by alcohol was about to fly a plane over the weekend, but was stopped because of the action of passengers?

Alistair Darling: I am about to explain how the Bill would help. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal with that shortly, but I shall speak first about marine accidents.

Tom Brake: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I shall make some preliminary remarks, then I shall give way.
	The principle has long been accepted that we ought to have measures to reduce the effect of drinking on the number of accidents. That has been accepted for many years in relation to road accidents. It is interesting that when breath tests for drivers were introduced in 1967, it was reckoned that fatalities were reduced by about 800 a year. The measure was controversial at the time, but the principle is now accepted without question. I believe that a similar approach needs to be extended to both marine and aviation activities.
	I shall speak about marine activities first, so if the hon. Gentleman's question is about marine activities, I shall deal with it. Aviation activities are slightly different, and I intend to return to that topic.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. My question was actually on the subject of roads, to which he referred. Given that the Bill provides for prescribed limits on alcohol, why have the Government not considered using it as an opportunity to reduce the limit for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg?

Alistair Darling: We do not have any plans to reduce the limit below the current limit. That is why the matter is not addressed in the Bill. Instead, we are introducing similar provisions in relation to both marine and aviation activities. Let me explain what we propose to do.
	Clauses 75 and 77 implement the recommendations that were made by Lord Justice Clarke in his review of safety on the Thames after the Marchioness disaster. It was also a manifesto commitment of the Government. The Bill will make it an offence for any mariner to operate while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Off-duty professional mariners are included as well if they are on the vessel and they might be needed in an emergency to protect passenger safety.
	Clause 77 applies to what are referred to as non-professional mariners—people whose employment is not in the field. We could have extended the provisions that apply to professional mariners to all boats, whatever their size and speed, but we considered that they should be proportionate. There is a difference between what is needed in relation to a large passenger-carrying ship with a professional crew and in relation to a man rowing a boat in a harbour. We will consult carefully on how best to deal with non-professional mariners.
	The Bill contains a power to exempt vessels with reference to the power of their motor, size or location. We want to consult on the repercussions, as we need to get the matter right. None the less, we are minded, for example, to exempt rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. However, larger, high-powered recreational vessels such as jet-skis would probably be included. We want to strike the right balance to ensure that we get the legislation right. The proposed blood-alcohol limit is the same as that which applies to motoring—80 mg.

David Cairns: I thank the Secretary of State for that explanation. As a Member of Parliament representing a port area, I am amazed that such provisions have not already been introduced. Will he clarify what the research paper says about not extending the provisions to which he refers to non-professional mariners in Scotland? What legislation are they covered by? If the issue is important in England and Wales, how will we deal with it in Scotland?

Alistair Darling: This is a devolved matter, but perhaps it would help if I explained to my hon. Friend why I do not think the legislation needs to be extended in that way. At the moment, if a non-professional mariner is suspected of being responsible for an accident and has taken alcohol—in Scotland, that can be established by the police asking them to take a breath test—that can be an exacerbating factor in the procurator fiscal deciding what charge should be brought against that individual. For example, if alcohol was present at the time of an accident involving a death, it might lead the procurator fiscal to conclude that the charge should be culpable homicide, as opposed to a lesser charge. The reason why we have drafted the legislation in this way is not only that the matter is devolved—if the Scottish Executive want to make changes, they can do so—but that the Government believe that the current powers and law would allow us to deal with someone who was not a professional mariner, but used a boat and caused a death or serious injury for a reason of which drink was thought to be a part. The existing law would allow the courts to deal with such a person.
	Moving from the sea to the air, the position is slightly different. Perhaps I can explain what we are doing and then return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). The Bill makes it an offence for somebody to undertake safety-critical aviation activities while they are affected by drugs or alcohol. Generally, the limits of enforcement will be on the same basis as for motorists, but there is an exception. As fast reflexes are essential on the part of aircrews and air traffic controllers, a lower limit of 20 mg will be set for those engaged in such activities. For all other aviation workers, however, the limit will be 80 mg.
	On the incident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside referred, I do not want to be drawn into the particular details, for reasons that she will understand. The new limit would mean that if somebody in an aircrew, for example, was found to have a blood alcohol content of more than 20 mg, they would be guilty of an offence under the Bill. Many companies have a similar requirement as part of their standing orders, as it were. It is right that the legislation on air and seagoing activities should be brought roughly into line with what has happened for a long time in relation to cars.

Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful answer. Can he give the House any information about the current situation? Is he aware whether the current position in relation to aircraft and alcohol consumption is causing particular difficulties?

Alistair Darling: I am aware that it has caused difficulties. A private Member's Bill that will be considered shortly adds to police powers to deal with someone who is affected by alcohol or drugs. The Government are well disposed to the measure, which is a welcome addition. However, current police powers, and those that Parliament will grant us in the Bill, mean that the police in this country have the ability that they need to deal with anybody—a member of staff or a passenger—who is drunk and incapable. It is commendable that the courts visit stiff sentences on people who misbehave in aeroplanes because they pose such a danger to everybody else. It is grossly unfair to an aircraft crew if people who are the worse for wear can abuse them. They can expect the courts to deal with them firmly.
	I want to deal with London Underground and clause 105. Before I consider the detailed provisions that amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999, it would be helpful if I explained the necessity for them, and where matters stand in relation to the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London. I appreciate that that matter is of interest.
	On 4 December last year, I told hon. Members that I did not consider that a transfer of the tube could take place against the background of a challenge by the Mayor and Transport for London to the European Commission's decision that the public-private partnership arrangements did not constitute state aid. I also set out my position on funding, which amounts to approximately £1 billion a year for the next seven and a half years. That position has not changed. However, we made it clear in December that we would reconsider the grant if any major unforeseen needs arose. That remains the Government's position.
	In the past few days, discussions have taken place with Transport for London. I spoke to Bob Kiley several times over the weekend. Good progress has been made on discussions to resolve the matter. Transport for London understands that no more money is on offer, except in the case of unforeseen expenditure, as we said last December. That enabled us to discuss with Transport for London a process that would lead to the transfer of London Underground on the clear understanding that all legal challenges are abandoned.
	Although an appeal was launched yesterday, the Mayor's office said that the move was technical, to stop the clock on the legal process. Discussions continue. I want the underground to transfer smoothly because that is in everyone's best interests. Of course, I shall keep hon. Members informed of developments.
	Let us consider the sections of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that clause 105 amends and that may work to restrict the operation of some provisions of the PPP contracts when they are transferred to Transport for London. Unless alternative arrangements that are satisfactory to all parties, including those that bid for the PPP contracts, can be made, I do not intend to transfer London Underground until the amended powers are in force, subject to Parliament's consideration of the Bill.

Mike Gapes: As a London Member of Parliament, I welcome the fact that the Government appear to be making progress in persuading the Mayor that it is time to end the legal challenges and take the road of co-operation. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will persist in their efforts because Londoners are crying out for a resolution. We should get on with the investment that London's underground needs.

Alistair Darling: The majority of people in London now believe that whatever their differences or difficulties in the past, it is now time to get on with investing the money in the tube. I granted an indemnity to Tube Lines and Metronet because I believed that the time had come to make desperately needed investment in the tube. I am pleased that Transport for London accepts our position. We are not offering more money; we made the settlement last December. However, as we said then, the Government would have to consider unforeseen costs. The agreement, which is a development in the Mayor's past position, means that we can discuss methods of transferring the tube from London Underground to Transport for London. A smooth and orderly transfer is essential and in everyone's interests to clarify who is responsible for the tube.
	Those discussions are continuing. As I have said, I have had a number of useful discussions with Bob Kiley of Transport for London. I very much hope that the matters can be resolved, because it must be in the interests of everybody in London that we get this money into the Tube, that management is put on a sound and permanent footing and that we get on with it. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said.

Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that he has made it clear to the Mayor that no more money is available. There are, however, media reports that he may be discussing with the Mayor bringing forward to an earlier timeframe some money that was otherwise programmed to be available. Will he confirm whether that is being discussed?

Alistair Darling: There are a variety of reports in the media that are not right, and there appear to be a variety of people telling the media various things for their own various interests.
	It is very important that the House understand the situation. I set out in some detail last December the position in relation to the transfer and the funding. I have allocated funding to Transport for London, not just for the Tube but for non-Tube activities. As I said last December, the Department made it clear to London Underground and TFL that if something unforeseen came along the Government would look at it, in the same way as we would need to deal with it if the Government were directly responsible. If there is nothing unforeseen, the next time the spending will be looked at is in 2004, in the spending review in that year, which is when we shall look at all spending across the whole of government in the normal way.
	Because of what I regard as an extremely helpful development on the part of the Mayor, who I think recognises that it is desirable to make progress, it is now possible to discuss how a transfer would take place.
	Two matters that came to our attention in December need to be resolved before transfer by amending the Greater London Authority Act. It was always intended when the Act was drafted that as soon as the PPP was in place transfer would follow immediately. In other words, the drafters had not anticipated that there might be a prolonged dispute or appeals to the European Court, or to anywhere else for that matter.
	Therefore, it is necessary to do two things, which clause 105 achieves. First, it allows the contracts to operate as intended and allows the guarantees in place in relation to the PPP to remain. Secondly, there need to be changes to the possible insolvency provisions. At present, on transfer were either of the two consortia running the PPP to become insolvent the assets would come back into the public sector. As the Act is drafted, if there is a delay and there is insolvency, that would not happen. Clearly, Parliament intended that the tube's assets should remain in the public sector. So those two changes are essential to make sure that the PPPs work.
	For the sake of completeness I would add that the Tube Lines contract has now been signed. Tube Lines is now operating its three lines. I believe that the Metronet consortia will reach a financial close in March or April this year, which will allow the investment to go into London Underground—something that is desperately needed and long overdue.
	The Bill puts in place significant steps to improve safety, not just on the railways, but also at sea and in the air. It is backed by the necessary investment, which is critical, as well as changes in management to ensure a better safety culture. It also makes some minor adjustments to the GLA Act. It will contribute to making sure that money goes into the London Underground railway, which is absolutely essential.
	I hope that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. There will be points of detail, which can be dealt with, but I hope that the whole House can support it without division. I commend the Bill to the House.

Tim Collins: I can pick up on the Secretary of State's last comments by saying that I believe that the Bill is largely uncontroversial. Clearly, issues of detail will need to be examined in the Committee, but there are many parts that we welcome. Indeed, they are a worthwhile and important contribution to the cause that I am sure all parts of the House share—the wish to see greater transport safety.
	In particular, we welcome the Government's decision to legislate for the creation of a railway accident investigation branch, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) proposed when he was shadow Transport Secretary back in December 1999. It is a sensible modelling of the successful arrangements relating to aviation and maritime accident investigation. While there are again issues of detail—no doubt the industry, practitioners and others will want them to be pursued in Committee—we have no difficulty in principle with the creation of the body. Indeed, we welcome the Government's decision to create it.
	More generally, a great deal of the Bill involves the incorporation within new aspects of transport provision of legislation passed by the last Conservative Government. I refer to the extension of the Police Act 1996 to the British Transport police, matters relating to alcohol control and the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Of course, it would be somewhat anomalous if the Conservative party, having introduced such provisions in many other respects, were suddenly to find it difficult in principle to support their extension in the way that the Government propose.
	We have no difficulty with that, but issues of detail need to be considered. As the Secretary of State and his colleagues know, there are areas in which the Government—perhaps for sensible reasons, perhaps for less sensible ones—have chosen to amend rather than simply copy over the existing provisions. We want to explore in Committee exactly why they have chosen to do that.
	The debate has already proven itself worth while, as it has enabled us to have a wide-ranging discussion on some general principles that perhaps ought to apply to transport safety. I want to comment on one or two things that the Secretary of State said in that context. I very much hope that we can continue to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus, and our starting point should be the fact that a life is a life is a life. Saving a life on the roads or in the air is at least as valuable to society as saving one in any other context.
	One aspect that Conservative Members will want to explore in Committee and on Report is whether we should be thinking about moving towards a system whereby the Government seek to save life and to commit resources that are likely to save life on the same basis across all modes of transport without differentiating, as sometimes happens now, between expenditure that would save lives on the railway as opposed to that which would save lives in other contexts.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is on to an interesting question. Was the Secretary of State too dismissive when I made the point that if slowing cars down makes them safer, surely slowing trains down makes them safer? Are not the Government speaking with forked tongue here? After every serious rail crash, they impose speed restrictions. Does not that show that similar principles apply and that speed has something to do with safety on the railways as well as on the roads?

Tim Collins: My right hon. Friend and I are absolutely united in that we believe that similar standards and similar beliefs should be applied across modes of transport. That leads me to a particular issue that the Secretary of State touched on. Although I hope that there is no major difference between the parties, it is important to achieve clarification.
	The Secretary of State talked about the aftermath of Saturday's serious and worrying incident on the Central line. He made it clear—none of us would disagree with this—that he wants to ensure that London Underground can conduct thorough safety inquiries, which I am sure it is doing. He also wants to ensure that it learns the lessons of the incident and takes whatever steps are necessary to prevent its repetition. Again, I am sure we all agree with that. However, I am perhaps a little disconcerted that he did not demur when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said that the Central line might be disrupted or even shut for weeks.
	In that context, we in this place need to be clear about the signals that we are sending out to the railway industry, whether they relate to London Underground or the main line rail industry. It has been widely reported that 500,000 people a day rely on the Central line, so we must consider what may happen if even 10 per cent. of them switch to the roads as a result of its closure or disruption. I declare an interest in that I normally travel to the House on the Central line, but I have been unable to do so for the past two days. I have driven in, and I suspect that tens of thousands of people working in and around London have done the same.
	Given what we know about the relative safety of road transport compared with rail transport, it follows that tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are risking life and limb in a way that would not be necessary were the Central line operating. We do not know, but the Central line may be kept out of service for a period of weeks. If it is, Saturday's incident, which no doubt was terrifying for the people involved in it, may lead to actual loss of life. That would be tragic.
	I hope that all hon. Members will agree that London Underground should bear that possibility in mind, even though today's London Evening Standard is reporting that the rail unions are pressurising it to contemplate taking out of service permanently all the rolling stock currently running on the Central line if it is concluded that some design flaw was involved in Saturday's incident. I remind the Secretary of State that that stock has been used successfully for about a decade, and its removal from service would seem strange.
	I hope that the House will agree that London Underground should reach a balanced judgment on these matters. A decision to shut down the Central line for several weeks for reasons of safety should not be taken lightly, if the consequence will be that more people risk their lives travelling by road.
	The Opposition also hope that it will be possible to examine some of the other matters mentioned by the Secretary of State. I join the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about European train passenger warning systems. The Secretary of State is right to look at the practicality of such measures, and to aim for systems that work. Some siren voices always call for money to be spent on rail safety, even if that might not be terribly effective. Opposition Members will back the right hon. Gentleman if the actions that he takes to enhance rail safety are clearly based on the best science and the most rational case. Those actions should not be taken merely in response to public or media pressure to spend money for the sake of spending money.
	In fact, the UK rail system is extremely safe, and becoming more so. It is not as safe as we should like, but there is no doubt that it is getting safer every year. The Transport 2000 spokesman, Mr. Stephen Joseph, has said that, even after recent serious rail accidents, it would be irrational for people to conclude that they would be safer travelling by road. That is entirely sensible: sadly, more than 3,000 people lose their lives, and about 300,000 are injured, on the roads every year. I hope that that statistic will be noted in the Standing Committee's deliberations on the Bill.
	I hope too that the Committee takes note of the recent observation by Andrew Evans, professor of transport safety at University College, London. He commented that a person was far more likely to suffer an accident on the way to a railway station than at any subsequent stage of the journey. The Government are right to establish, through the Bill, a rail accident investigation unit, but the message must not be that the rail industry is unsafe in its absence, nor that we need special legislation to protect people from an unsafe system. This country's rail system is basically safe. Measures can be taken to make it safer still, but we do people no favours by perpetuating the myth that travelling by road is easier and safer than travelling by rail.
	The Opposition also welcome the provisions relating to the British Transport police. The Secretary of State did not mention it, but at 10.30 pm this evening BBC 1 is showing the first part of a documentary series on the British Transport police. It will show why we have many reasons to be grateful to that force for the work that it does on behalf of so many people. I believe that tonight's episode will focus on the unpleasant but essential tasks that many members of the force perform in collecting objects—and sometimes, horrifically, body parts—from the rail network. That job has to be done and they undertake it with great care and diligence. It is right that they should have the status that will be accorded them in their incorporation under the Bill. They will no longer be treated as second-class police officers but will be recognised for doing an extremely important public safety job.
	At a time when the Prime Minister rightly warns of the continuing threat to our national security from international terrorism, and given that on so many occasions in the past terrorists concentrated their attacks on parts of the rail network, it is important for the British Transport police to know that they have the full support of people throughout the country and on both sides of the House for their work. I hope that the Secretary of State's prioritisation of their work in the Bill will also be reflected in the negotiations that he and others hold with the Treasury on the provision of resources for that police service. Conservative Members continue to hold the view that our police, in general, need more backing and that certainly holds as true for the British Transport police as for any other organisation.
	We note that the Secretary of State had to be prompted to refer to part 2, which relates to the changes to the Office of the Rail Regulator. He rightly referred—as I suspected he would—to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force in favour of the proposition that it is better for regulatory bodies, in general, to be organised as a board rather than as an individual. However, we shall want to explore, if not in this debate certainly in Committee and on Report, the full background to the Government's decision to change the way in which the rail regulator operates. Is it the case, as some people suspect, that the Government were not exactly reluctant to implement that recommendation of their taskforce, given that the current rail regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, has demonstrated that he is capable of being independent not only of individual concerns within the rail industry but also of Her Majesty's Government? Some Members will recall the occasion when the regulator gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport about a difference of opinion, or of recollection, between him and a former Secretary of State. It would be a matter of great regret and some seriousness if the Government's decision to change the whole nature of the operation of the Office of the Rail Regulator were to stem from their frustration at the regulator's actions on that occasion. We hope to be able to establish clearly that getting their own back played no part in the Government's motivation.
	The Secretary of State also referred to the relatively short but none the less significant provisions towards the end of the Bill on the London underground. In his evidence to the Select Committee on 18 December, the right hon. Gentleman explained why the Bill took so long to produce, even though, when it was announced in the Queen's Speech, it was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a measure that we were unlikely to oppose. The Secretary of State said that the main reason was because even by 18 December he had not reached final conclusions about whether the regulations on the London underground and Transport for London should be dealt with by primary or secondary legislation. I do not invite him to comment on that point, but I suspect that it was the main reason for the hold-up in our debating the Bill.
	Earlier, the Secretary of State said that we should not believe everything that the media reported about the state of negotiations between him and the Mayor—indeed, I think that we should not believe everything in the media on any subject. However, I welcomed his comments on the tone of those negotiations and his optimism that progress is being made. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate in the Standing Committee whether, if they reach an agreement with the Mayor that incorporates the provisions to which the Secretary of State referred—that is, a binding undertaking by the Mayor not to return to legal challenge or legal action—the provisions in the Bill would be otiose and could be struck out of the draft. We shall wait to see whether the Government get into that position, but it would be helpful to know perhaps hypothetically what their view on that would be.
	Transport for London does not agree with the Secretary of State that the provisions in the Bill are intended simply to carry out the original wishes of Parliament as set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. After all, TfL in its memorandum to the Select Committee dated 11 December points to the rather unanswerable argument that the primary purpose of the Act was to transfer responsibility for the London underground to TfL and the London Mayor. It is perfectly true, as the Secretary of State says, that other intentions were inherent, lay behind, were implied and in some cases were stated, but the primary purpose was to transfer responsibility to Transport for London. That is something that the Secretary of State does not at present propose to do.
	In its memorandum TfL states:
	"It is also certainly possible that these changes, once enacted—"
	it refers specifically to clause 105 of the Bill—
	"would permit the Government to retain control of LUL for an indefinite duration."
	That, no doubt, is not the Secretary of State's hope or wish. He has made it clear that that is not his intention, but he would find it difficult to argue but that TfL is right in its assessment of the legal consequences of that clause. We will wish to explore, perhaps in depth, in Committee whether the Government are prepared to consider some self-denying ordinances or perhaps even some legal restrictions to ensure that the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act, which envisaged that long before now London underground would be the responsibility of TfL, will be implemented rather than continually frustrated by disagreements between the Mayor, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I do not seek to arbitrate between those individuals. I happily take the view that they are all as bad as each other, but it seems to me that Londoners and those travelling in and out of London are suffering from the inability to reach agreement. It would be helpful if they could reach some form of consensus sooner rather than later.
	The legislation will on the whole have a positive effect. Its intention is clearly to address serious and important issues in a serious and proper way. We will wish to examine points of detail. We shall in particular want to examine the way in which the welcome restrictions on the use of alcohol or drugs by aviation and maritime personnel will be implemented. The Secretary of State did not state otherwise, but he will acknowledge that legal safeguards already apply. It is an offence for someone in charge of an aircraft, for example, to be under the influence of alcohol, but he is right to say that the courageous measures introduced by Barbara Castle, who received an enormous amount of criticism for introducing the breathalyser for motorists, are not now an issue of serious public controversy or debate. It seems to me highly likely that that will also be the case once similar procedures are introduced for pilots of aircraft and maritime vessels. We will examine the detail of that in consultation with the industry, but we do not have any difficulty with it in principle.

John Bercow: Hitherto the British Transport police have operated on the basis of a part-statutory, part-contractual jurisdiction over the railways. The proposal in the Bill is to give them the status of a fully statutory body—a status that my hon. Friend welcomed. Can he confirm for me and for the benefit of the House that in addition to enjoying greater esteem as a result of their increased status they will enjoy a corresponding increase in practical powers?

Tim Collins: Until the very last moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to note that, of course, greater accountability is one of the principal advantages of bringing the British Transport police within the regime that applies to other police authorities under the Police Act 1996. We should certainly welcome greater accountability, and it should be seen as a strength.
	Yes, it is my understanding that the changes that the Government intend to introduce will regularise the position of the British Transport police and, certainly for all purposes relating to its management, control, accounting and accountability, they will be treated essentially like any other police authority, while recognising that they are, of course, a national organisation, not based on a county structure that would otherwise be the case.
	The powers of the British Transport police will not be significantly altered by the Bill, but, as I said earlier, we would all recognise that, given the security considerations that perhaps apply more to railway stations and lines than to almost any other public structure, or series of buildings or public spaces, it is indeed appropriate that the force should have the full range of powers that they need to discharge their duties, which are likely to become more, rather than less, important in the years to come.
	I was saying a word or two about the provisions that relate to alcohol testing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—I am afraid that she has just left her place—referred to the highly publicised incident in Stockholm. I understand that the legal authorities are still considering that matter, so we must not comment in detail on the case, but it certainly indicates that there is a topicality in the Government's proposals. That is in a sense commendable, but they cannot claim any credit for it, as they could hardly have known what was about to happen.
	However, it was notable that—I hope that this does not intrude into the detail of the case—it was reported that the person concerned was breathalysed. Of course the incident occurred in Sweden, not in the United Kingdom, but it is interesting to note therefore that perhaps Sweden is slightly ahead of us in such provisions and that we are dealing with something that the international aviation business is unlikely to find particularly controversial.
	It is the Conservative party's view that the Government are right to introduce legislation on transport safety, but our view is that, from time to time, it would be more appropriate for the House also to consider road safety issues, given that travelling by road is by far the most dangerous form of transport in this country. Sadly, it is by far the form of transport in which the largest number of lives is lost. Indeed, there are some very alarming statistics, not only the often-quoted figures in relation to the number of motorists or their passengers who are killed on the roads, but almost 1,000 people a year are killed even though they are pedestrians or pedal cyclists, many of whom are children. It is not easy to suggest that there are simple legislative solutions to those issues, but they need to be put on the public record and discussed in the House every time that we talk about transport safety.
	When the media talk about transport safety, they almost invariably dig out the stock footage of rail crashes. There have been some very horrific rail crashes, but the media seem to ignore the fact that, tragically, 10 people die in this country, on average, on the roads every day, week in week out, and it might help if, from time to time, they gave that fact a little more publicity to balance out the reality, instead of giving a slightly misleading impression.
	I had hoped that the Secretary of State might have said a word about the relationship between the railway accident investigation branch, which he proposes in the Bill, and the work of Railway Safety, which, as he will know, has been set up by Network Rail and succeeds the previous arrangements that applied to Railtrack. The Minister for Transport is nodding. Perhaps he will say a word or two about that in his closing remarks.
	Railway Safety says on its website that its 2003 railway group safety plan
	"adopts a long-term goal of reducing to zero the number of events with the potential to cause a collision or derailment and that are under the direct control of Network Rail and the train operators."
	That is clearly a worthwhile and welcome target, but I hope that we will not make the mistake of taking the view that, somehow, the rail industry fails if it does not deliver a reduction to zero instantly or overnight. A lot of work will have to be done before that can happen, but there is no doubt that a great deal of very hard work is being undertaken.
	We do not propose to oppose the Government on this legislation for the sake of opposition. When they are doing something that we broadly welcome, we will tell them so, which is what we are doing on this occasion. We will want to explore points of detail and points that the Government have perhaps not fully thought through. On the whole, however, the Bill will and should command cross-party support, and is likely to be welcomed by all those involved in travelling when it reaches the statute book.

Lawrie Quinn: It is a pleasure and an honour, as someone who spent 19 years working in the railway industry, to contribute to this important debate. Before I entered the House, this subject occupied my every waking hour, and sometimes my sleeping hours. On many occasions, in the middle of the night, I was rung by control to be told that there had been an incident or accident somewhere. As I result, I had to respond in the manner to which the Secretary of State alluded in his opening remarks by trying to ensure that the system was safe and that any injured people were dealt with appropriately, and moving as swiftly as possible to restore the railway.
	In relation to some of the interventions by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about speed and the necessity sometimes to place speed restrictions or other restrictions on the railway system, those are, of course, a result of railway group standards and the safety standards that apply to the industry. Not applying a speed restriction or a temporary signalling arrangement to a particular section of track would not only be foolhardy but very dangerous. It would add considerable risk, and defeat the whole object of what is Britain's safest transportation system.
	I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). This is a first for the Conservative Front-Bench team, but he seemed to have great knowledge that reflected research undertaken in preparation for the debate. He and I recently attended a useful and helpful reception—I in my capacity as co-chairman of the all party-group on railways, and he in his as the Opposition transport spokesman—and he was very welcoming to those in the railway community who do so much to keep our railways safe.
	With those few remarks to establish my credentials to speak in this debate, I want to bring to the House's attention one or two concerns about the Bill. I tried to deal with one of them in an intervention on the Secretary of State earlier: the question of the definition of what is an accident and what is an incident. Again, I listened carefully to the thoughtful contribution from the Opposition spokesman, who continually described the accident—as I would put it—that occurred on the Central line as an incident. I do not know whether the fact that there were no fatalities was a consideration in relation to his definition. It illustrates my concern, however—and that of many who work in the railway industry—that the important question of definition should be clarified. Even if that point cannot be dealt with on the face of the Bill, I hope that the issue will be focused on in Committee.
	In terms of my railway experience, a signal passed at danger—a SPAD—is an incident. It would be an accident if, as a result of that SPAD, a further collision occurred, and people were injured or substantial damage was done to the equipment and engineering systems of the railway infrastructure. I hope that that starts people thinking about what we should do to address the important problem of defining the difference between an accident and an incident.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to determine the difference between an incident and an accident. Some industries have a long history of doing that. In the mining industry, Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines would be called to incidents or occurrences. I referred the Secretary of State to RIDDOR as a pointer for such a definition.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend is right. His former industry of mining and my former industry had similar safety cultures. Some of their regulations have parallels. We learned from previous mistakes, built on the regulations and put safer systems in place.

Don Foster: I accept that we need the definitions and I have drafted an amendment that might satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that count. I hope that it will be selected for debate in Committee. Does he accept that, for the rail accident investigation branch to develop its intelligence, it will need to deal not only with accidents but the incidents that he describes, just as the air accidents investigation branch considers near misses as well as actual accidents?

Lawrie Quinn: I agree. In fact, the categorisation would allow the accident investigation branch to apply the appropriate resources and to define the specialist technical resources that it will need to decide how quickly attention should be given to an incident. For example, an incident that involves a SPAD might be the result of a problem with the signalling. It might be possible to put a temporary operating mechanism in place, such as a speed restriction, and fix the problem the following weekend to allow the tracks to be run at full line speed. Obviously, the process would be different in the case of an accident and might necessitate the closure of a line, railway diversions and so on.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill differentiates between a serious accident and an accident? On the face of it, an accident may not appear serious, but the investigation could discover a fault in equipment or track that would have repercussions in other parts of the railway. A problem might not be immediately apparent when an accident occurs. Is not there a problem with the definitions?

Lawrie Quinn: There is a distinction between the need to have a definition in the Bill and the reality of the good safety culture in the railway industry. I cannot stress too strongly how safety conscious and committed to safety the people who work in that industry are.
	Let us consider the perspective of the driver of the train on the Central line at the weekend. His instinct was to report the fact that there was a problem with the train. That reaction is instinctive for anyone who works in the railway industry. A clearer definition would aid the important work carried out by the new organisation and, as the hon. Gentleman said, add to the categorisation of lessons learned to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
	I have a personal concern that relates to my private Member's Bill, which I hope will obtain its Second Reading on Friday. The Bill seeks to revitalise and bring up to date the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. From my personal experience of dealing with accidents and incidents during my railway career, I have great respect for the Health and Safety Executive and its inspectors, particularly those in the railway inspectorate. I regard them as the colleagues of anyone who works in the industry.
	Clause 102 proposes a new railways safety levy. My concern is that, by clever movement of public moneys, it would introduce an opaque bureaucracy that may be unnecessary. At the end of the day, the passengers and those who move freight by rail will pay, perhaps through subsidy from the Government. In an early bid to my colleagues in the Treasury, I ask them to consider the resources being given to the HSE and ensure that it is properly funded from the public purse, rather than by the merry-go-round financial arrangement that I think I detect in clause 102. I hope that the Standing Committee will consider that point.
	I turn now to an issue of confidentiality that arises from clause 8(4). I have worked on many construction sites close to the railway; they are very dangerous places to be. On one site, we had a series of minor incidents, and the clerk of works placed the letters "PTB" on his hard hat. When people inquired what that meant, he replied that the letters stood for "person to blame".
	People who work in the railway industry share the goal of having a safe, working transport system. They need to be confident that confidentiality will be maintained when they report a mishap and that they will not be reported to management or the police. I detect a clear consensus on witness confidentiality not only among employees in the railway industry such as my former colleagues but among employers. That is part of the system used by the air accidents investigation branch and investigations into other forms of transport, and it should be enshrined in the Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend take that principle further and agree that there should be encouragement and support for employees who report to senior management when they see things being done incorrectly? There should be whistleblowing when corners are cut that may lead to problems later on. I understand that there is fear in the industry about whistleblowing in those circumstances.

Lawrie Quinn: On most of the sites that I looked after when I was a railway civil engineer, I was responsible for holding fortnightly safety meetings. I used to open every meeting by reflecting on the fact that if we had a safe site with good communications, and people shared knowledge of problems, such as an untied ladder or problems with overhead electrical systems, as soon as they saw them, we would prevent accidents that might have resulted in serious injury or fatality.
	We must bear it in mind that we are dealing with not only those who work on the railways but the travelling public and dangerous chemicals and substances that are transported on the railways. There is a wider public obligation to make sure that information is given to the people in charge as quickly as possible, and that must be enshrined in the general safety climate of any transport system.

George Stevenson: On the confidential reporting of concerns, is my hon. Friend aware that, two or three years ago, some railway companies introduced a confidential reporting system on a pilot scheme basis? In the airline industry, a confidential reporting system does indeed exist, particularly in respect of air traffic control. Should that not be rolled out throughout the whole transport industry, including the railways?

Lawrie Quinn: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done with the Transport Committee, which reflected on exactly that point in 1998. In my experience, such an idea would certainly help to create a general climate of good practice and a safe transport system; indeed, that is good practice in terms not only of protecting people, but of enhancing the safety reputation that any transport system should have. It is unfortunate that, because of the pressure of trying to get the job done, such a consensus is perhaps not reached throughout the entire organisation. The provisions included in strengthened health and safety legislation and in this Bill will encourage the establishment of the safe systems that we want.
	I shall be brief as I am conscious that many colleagues want to get in. On clause 8 and learning from past investigations and mistakes, it is essential to ensure that the Secretary of State gets regular feedback from the track-side about any problems. We have started to move away from the fragmented situation to which privatisation led, whereby a more legalistic framework was put in place, and people stopped talking and wanting to share information openly.
	Everyone connected with the industry always has something to learn from such investigations—from the Secretary of State to the linemen at the track-side and the people on the platforms. It is absolutely essential that the rail accident investigation branch have a statutory duty to report to the independent railway safety and standards board, which in turn should have a duty to disseminate such reports throughout the railway industry. What happened in the west country could occur in the north-east or in the north of Scotland, and it is crucial that we establish a transparent approach. Clauses 8 and 9 and clause 6(4) deal with that point, and I hope that the Standing Committee will examine in detail what can be learned from past investigations.
	Last week, the all-party group on rail had the privilege and pleasure of visiting the British Transport police control room at Victoria, and it proved very useful for representatives of both Houses to witness the complexities involved. I very much welcome the Bill's proposal to enshrine a railway policing authority in British Transport police. It is important that all communities can talk directly to police forces, but I make a plea to the Secretary of State, and to the Ministers who will take the Bill forward, to look again at such provisions. The industry that I used to work in delivers many journeys and moves much tonnage every day of the year. It is important that we do not forget the staff—the people who work day in, day out—and give them an opportunity to participate in the important governance work of British Transport police. Again, I hope that Members can take a look at that in Committee. I wish the Bill well, and hope that its progress through Parliament is speedy so that we can make sure that we get an even safer railway fit for the 21st century.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who demonstrated in his speech, as he does in everything that he does for the all-party group, his deep knowledge and concern for the railways. No doubt, Members on both sides of the House will regard him as yet another contender for membership of the Committee considering the Bill.
	As other hon. Members have mentioned, last Saturday's accident on the tube throws into stark relief the importance of vigilance on safety in public transport. Liberal Democrat Members have long argued that public transport should be safe, reliable and affordable—the most important of those three considerations is safety. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), I wish to make it clear on the record that, as the Bill includes a number of measures that will drive forward the issue of safety in our transport systems, we shall certainly support it on Second Reading, notwithstanding the fact that we want to explore a number of areas in Committee and propose some changes.
	As hon. Members have said, the Bill is limited in scope. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I find it particularly disappointing that there is little reference to the vital issue of road safety. I have already noted that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, no doubt doing yet another stint in Westminster Hall at the moment, has hinted on a number of occasions that the Government intend to introduce a road safety Bill in future. If that is the case, I hope that we will receive confirmation of the Government's intentions later, as such a measure is vital, not least because we are already three years into a supposed 10-year road transport safety strategy.
	Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think that it is important to put on the record our view of how safe the railways are already. Indeed, despite Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar, our railways are five times safer than they were back in 1975. The sad truth is that those improvements have not been mirrored on our roads. In fact, the statistics are stark. Since 1997, fewer than 150 people have died on our railways, but a staggering 17,000 people have died on our roads. There is therefore much to be done to improve safety on our roads, and it is a pity that the Bill is almost silent on that issue.

Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in relation to road safety, the Government could look at a problem with car auctions highlighted by Families Bereaved Through Car Crime, a Belfast organisation? It is possible for an 11-year-old to purchase a car, get together with friends, then go joyriding.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I was horrified to learn that it was possible for children as young as 11 to go to an auction, buy a car then, tragically on some occasions, go off joyriding—a euphemism, as it is certainly not joyful. I hope that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have taken note of what my hon. Friend said.
	The Bill is limited in scope. We welcome many of the measures that it includes, but it is important to set it in the context of other issues that, surprisingly, it does not cover. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby will know only too well how complex the issues relating to safety on the railways now are, especially following privatisation. Anyone who has read the excellent briefing, "Railway Safety and Accidents", which was published earlier this month by the Library, will get a flavour of the degree of complexity that exists. Far too many bodies are involved in railway safety. For example, authorising a new railway carriage involves three different bodies—one to authorise the safety arrangements for the interior of the coach, one to deal with the exterior, and another to say whether it is safe to go on to the track. It was therefore appropriate that Lord Cullen recommended that there should be a single rail industry safety body that would take on many of those responsibilities and reduce the need for such a large number of bodies.
	The rail regulator's proposals in that respect are far less radical than those of Lord Cullen. Nevertheless, they are receiving a great deal of support and it is possible that such a body—a more limited body—will be established within the next few months. I hope that the Minister will tell us that it has the Government's approval and that the only reason that it is not mentioned in the Bill is that its establishment does not require primary legislation.

Chris Grayling: I echo the comments about the desirability of streamlining systems, structures and organisations. Given the hon. Gentleman's reference to privatisation, does he agree that it is important to put on the record that Lord Cullen's report said that there has been no deterioration in overall rail safety since privatisation, and that the tragedies that have taken place on the railway are the result of internal system failures. He was keen to stress that privatisation has not made the railways more dangerous.

Don Foster: We could start quibbling about interpretations of Lord Cullen's report, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully, as I have. I could find other parts of the report that refer, for example, to the problems created by the fragmentation of the industry. It is increasingly clear that problems in the rail industry have arisen as a result of years of neglect and underfunding, which arose partly because of the obscene conflicts between shareholder profits and passenger safety. That is why we were keen that measures should be introduced to change the arrangements for Railtrack.

Kelvin Hopkins: Might Lord Cullen have made a different comment had his report been written after Potters Bar and Hatfield, rather than before, given that contractors were clearly implicated?

Don Foster: I do not want to comment on that particular issue, although I shall touch on Potters Bar in a moment.
	There is an urgent need to simplify the safety regulatory structure on our railways. Personally, I would much rather that those arrangements were similar to those that exist for the Civil Aviation Authority, whereby there would be a safety regulator and an economic regulator within the overall structure of the Strategic Rail Authority, but with the operation of appropriate Chinese walls. Complexity is compounded by the involvement, as is proper, of the European Union. Who, within this jungle of regulatory bodies, will be responsible for telling us which takes precedence in the event of a conflict between the operation of technical specifications for interoperability and our own railway group standards?

Michael Clapham: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an issue about the boundaries of the various agencies that are responsible for safety. With reference to a safety regulator, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies to the railways, so the Health and Safety Commission becomes the safety regulator advising the Secretary of State.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. He is aware that there are a number of other bodies, some of which are about to change their names and their functions, which are also involved in these matters. The complexity is similar to that relating to who is responsible for carrying out investigations into accidents or incidents. One of the good features of the Bill is that it will provide greater clarity.
	On the aspects that are not covered by the Bill, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the importance of learning lessons from things that have gone wrong. He is right. It is a great pity that the Bill does not contain a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House at appropriate times on the progress that is being made in implementing recommendations arising from inquiries and investigations into accidents and incidents.
	For example, 33 of the recommendations of Professor Uff and Lord Cullen are still outstanding, well after the recommended date for implementation. It may be sensible for the Secretary of State and the industry to argue that some of those recommendations are inappropriate and should be changed. We have discussed ERTMS, for example. It may be deemed appropriate not to proceed with certain recommendations, but there should be regular reports to Parliament about the progress of recommendations, with an explanation about why some are to be ditched.
	There is also a concern that some investigations are taking far too long. If we are to learn the lessons, we need clear answers, as others have said. We are still waiting for the final report on the train derailment at Hatfield, which took place in October 2000. We were told some time ago that the final report would be published by the end of 2001, yet we are still waiting.
	Notwithstanding the matters that have been omitted, the Bill contains many welcome measures. The establishment of an independent body responsible for rail accident investigations—a move recommended by Lord Cullen, which should have been in place by now—is proposed, and we welcome that. We are concerned that too much of the detail is to be provided in regulation rather than in the Bill, and that there may still be a number of conflicts to be resolved—for example, between those who want to carry out an investigation to find out what has happened, and those who are keen to ensure that we get the railway running again as quickly as possible.
	There will be tensions between other bodies—for example, the transport police, who want to establish whether anyone is culpable, and the accident investigation body, which is interested in identifying the cause of the accident, and may not be concerned with liability and responsibility. Others, such as insurance loss adjusters, will also have an interest in the investigation. If an inquiry is subsequently set up, there could be a conflict between the inquiry, the rail accident investigation branch and the various other bodies.
	I am well aware that clause 7 proposes primacy for the RAIB, but there will be situations where that is inappropriate, as happens now. We need to explore with Ministers in Committee how all those potential conflicts will be resolved.
	There is also concern about the resources that will be provided for the new body. It is worth remembering that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate currently aspires to investigate 3.5 per cent. of all incidents and 20 per cent. of train accidents. To do that work, between 19 and 28 inspectors are at least notionally available in any week. It will be vital for the new body to at least match that level of activity to maintain its basic intelligence, but it is a little difficult to see how it will do so with the 10 inspectors that it is likely to be given.
	There is further concern about the level of support and resources, as has been mentioned. For example, will the Health and Safety Executive's laboratory at Buxton be made available to the new body? As the Minister will know, that laboratory is capable of carrying out forensic examination of large sections of track or even whole carriages. If it is to be made available, will there be a charge? Given how expensive such a charge would be, is £400,000 a year in running costs an appropriate figure?
	The changes to the Office of the Rail Regulator are also welcome. After all, they take one step further the moves already introduced by Tom Winsor in setting up his own advisory body. The Secretary of State is right that the office is now the only regulatory body that does not have its own board; at least, a board is being set up and it is appropriate to bring it in line.
	The sad thing about the proposal is that it does not go further. On 15 October 2001, when the then Secretary of State announced plans to turn Railtrack into a not-for-profit organisation, he said that it
	"would need far less intense regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure".—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 956.]
	The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was, talked in its first report of 2001–02, which was published in January 2002, about the need for a review of the respective roles of the regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority after the change in status of Railtrack. The Bill merely establishes a regulatory board, but fails to take forward either the promise of the previous Secretary of State or the advice of the Select Committee.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman and others might remember that the previous Secretary of State intended not only to streamline the powers of the rail regulator, but pretty much to abolish them by introducing an Act of Parliament that would have removed the regulator's powers entirely. I suspect that his ambitions were even more draconian than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Don Foster: Perhaps we can now persuade the former Secretary of State to become a member of the Committee, so that we can quiz him about those issues.
	Many issues need to be questioned still further, but one of the welcome measures is the new arrangements in respect of the British Transport police, which not only put them on to a statutory footing, but give them their own authority. Like so many of the things done by this Government, however, that has been a long time in coming. Looking back at the history books, one finds a departmental press release from 31 July 1998 entitled "British Transport Police to get independent control." We have therefore been waiting since then for the proposal to be implemented. Belated though the measure may be, it is none the less welcome.
	A couple of issues surprise me in what is being proposed. Given that the model for the new British Transport police authority is based on the Police Act 1996, I find it surprising that there will be an arrangement in which the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman. All other police authorities make the recommendation themselves.
	Finally, I turn to aviation and shipping in respect of alcohol and drugs. Last Saturday's incident in Stockholm has been mentioned. It is important to place on record the fact that it was clear from what happened subsequently and the actions that were taken by the airline how seriously British Airways takes the issue. The sad truth is that for far too long we have had no alcohol limits or linked testing regimes for mariners and those who work in aspects of the air transport industry that are critical for safety. We have waited a long time for such measures.
	Back in 1992, the Hayes report that followed the Marchioness disaster made recommendations for shipping. We are considering them 10 years later. The air accidents investigation branch made similar recommendations on air travel. Measures for which we have waited a long time are nevertheless welcome and we look forward to discussing some of the details in Committee.
	When the Secretary of State answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about whether he could reduce the acceptable amount of alcohol from 80 mg to 50 mg for drivers, he replied that he had no intention of taking action. It is therefore surprising that the Department for Transport has consulted on the matter for several years. Paragraph 13 of the consultation document that was first published in February 1998 states:
	"This strongly suggests that drinking by drivers in the 50-80 mg range is a significant and largely hidden cause of accidents."
	I hope that the Secretary of State was listening to that. Clear research evidence supports a reduction to 50 mg. If that is right for drivers, it is a more appropriate amount than the 80 mg for which the Bill provides.
	We understand the reasons for clause 105, which amends the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It exists to help the Secretary of State dig himself out of the hole of part-privatisation of the London underground. The poor drafting of the Act and the Government's failure to think through the details and implications of the daft part-privatisation proposals led to the provision. If the infraco goes bust between now and handing over the three tube lines to Transport for London, the liquidator is likely to use public assets to pay off the banks or other creditors. The British people would thus lose an asset through the Government's incompetence. So much for sound planning. At last, the Government are trying to put matters right. We will therefore support clause 105 because it makes sense to protect a public asset.
	The Bill contains many provisions that are long overdue. Although much needs to be done to tidy it up, we broadly welcome it and we therefore support Second Reading.

George Stevenson: I support the Bill. It is another example of the Government's determination to put safety, especially in transport, at the top of our agenda. However, I want to tease out several matters for clarification by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
	The proposal for a rail accident investigation branch has elicited a general welcome. However, I wonder whether the Government's approach to that important issue has been sufficiently radical or courageous. I am particularly bothered about the powers of the rail accident investigation branch, which will have a duty under the Bill to investigate serious accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke of the distinction between accidents and incidents, which is extremely important. I do not intend to labour that point. It has been well made.
	The part of the Bill that deals with the branch's powers says that with regard to less serious accidents the branch will have a discretion. Indeed, the Secretary of State may by regulation enact that discretion. The point that needs to be made is that if the tragic criterion for a serious accident is the number of people killed or injured, that means that less serious accidents are those that, thankfully, do not result in death or injury, as was the case with the recent incident on the underground, bad as it was. Then we are in danger of losing a real opportunity of learning the lessons from what might be termed relatively minor accidents. Even though they did not result in people being killed or injured, their lessons could be very important in developing measures to prevent possible future accidents.
	That distinction bothers me considerably, because there seems to be a determination to deal with serious accidents—those defined by the number of people tragically killed or injured—while there will be discretion with regard to those bad accidents that luckily did not result in serious injury or death, and therefore opportunities may be lost to learn lessons from them.
	Next, I seek clarification on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the rail accident investigation branch being based on the air accidents investigation branch model. We all understand that. Lord Cullen referred to it in his report. Let us look at what the air accidents investigation branch actually does. Regulation 4 of the 1996 regulations relating to it says that
	"the sole objective of the investigation shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents."
	I emphasise "prevention".
	The rail accident investigation branch, which is supposed to be based on that model, is, as I read the Bill, reactive and not proactive. That is an extremely important point. Lord Cullen made it clear in his report that he supported the approach taken by the AAIB. If I read the Bill correctly, we have a reactive situation on serious accidents, a discretionary situation on what are deemed to be less serious accidents, and no preventive responsibility at all, such as the air accidents investigation branch has. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give us some clarification on that.
	With regard to the regulatory board and the Office of the Rail Regulator, I had some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. The proposals are based in part on the Better Regulation Task Force recommendations. A comparison of the House of Commons brief on what the task force says with what the Government propose gives rise to some areas of concern.
	For example, the Better Regulation Task Force says:
	"The advantages of a board structure were felt to include:
	Ensuring a wide range of expertise within the decision making process."
	Fine. There is also this reference to
	"Increasing continuity of decision making".
	That is also fine. There is this, too:
	"Greater transparency and accountability of decision making."
	Now, as I read the Bill's proposals on the regulatory board, I can see the first two of those crucial objectives being achieved—the Better Regulation Task Force refers to that, or at least to their having a good chance of being achieved—but I see no indication that transparency and accountability will be achieved. Indeed, if I read the proposals correctly, the Government are effectively proposing to transform the advisory body to the rail regulator into a statutory board. That is as far as it goes, so I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the extremely important issues of transparency and accountability.
	I welcome the proposal on the British Transport police, which is very sensible as it has been explained to us. However, I want to raise two or three concerns with my right hon. Friend. A main objective of the proposals is to base British Transport police on the tripartite or triumvirate system—involving the Government, the police authority and the police—under the police Acts, which, effectively, are the framework in which our policing works. Fine. We can all support that, but the industry will continue to fund British Transport police.
	There is always a little unease when an industry that clearly has a direct interest in what a body such as British Transport police is doing provides the funding for it. I do not want to labour that point, as I want to make another. People say that the British Transport police will be funded by the industry, but we should consider the fact that the industry is 80 or 90 per cent. funded by the public purse, as are Network Rail, 80 per cent. of the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority.
	What is really meant by the idea of the industry funding British Transport police? In truth the public purse is funding British Transport police. We should consider that alongside the tripartite or triumvirate system that the Government want to apply to the force. I also wonder how public interest and accountability will be safeguarded in that system. As I read the proposals in the House of Commons Library brief, it is anticipated that the police authority would be made up of perhaps four representatives of passenger interests and four representatives of the industry. Fine. I do not know how much expertise would be involved there.

Don Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, does he agree that it is important for the representatives of the rail industry to include people who are employed in it?

George Stevenson: That is a valid point, but the main thrust of my remarks is that the public purse is paying.

Don Foster: In a roundabout way.

George Stevenson: No, not in a roundabout way. The public purse is involved very directly. It is misleading to think that the industry is providing the funding. Without the public purse, none of this would be happening. Again, accountability is extremely important, and whoever sits on the British Transport police authority should reflect such accountability and transparency.
	I turn briefly to the question of alcohol and drugs, and to the proposals relating to air crew and to what are called safety critical staff. I am somewhat worried about the distinction being made between air crew—that is, pilots—and other staff. Air crew will be subject to a maximum of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, on the basis that they need quick reactions. I understand that, but crew working on engines will face a limit of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.
	What sort of message does that give? I understand the effects that alcohol could have on someone piloting an aircraft, but is it any less important that people doing the critical safety work on engines should also be subject to the stricter regime? One could argue in the public interest that, for flight crew in particular, there should be no tolerance of alcohol content in the blood whatsoever
	Finally, I turn to a matter that has not yet been mentioned—the incorporation into UK law of the 1999 convention on international carriage by rail, COTIF. The Government say that that will take account of the changes in railway management and the separation of operation and infrastructure. This raises an important safety issue. The fragmentation of the industry has been a factor in the serious loss of confidence in railway safety in this country. I am delighted that Network Rail has understood that in-house maintenance of the railways will be not only cheaper, but far safer. I congratulate it on taking back in house some of the Great Western railway.

Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that outsourcing undermines the safety culture? That is true in the nuclear industry, as well as in the railway industry. Only 18 months ago, inspectors reported on safety standards in the nuclear industry and their report showed that the privatised utility, British Energy, undermined the safety culture. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see Network Rail bringing back in-house maintenance?

George Stevenson: I welcome the point that my hon. Friend makes. I do not want to reopen the debate about the chaos of privatisation, but a previous chief executive of Railtrack placed on record the fact that the company was unable to reconcile the interests of shareholders with those of safety. I hope that the incorporation of COTIF into UK law does not mean that the Government intend there to be more fragmentation of the industry. The lessons are there to be learned, and Network Rail is to be congratulated. I hope that the Government will encourage as much as possible the very welcome process that puts the public interest first when it comes to safety, and the move to bring maintenance back in house. Not only is in-house maintenance safer, but the present system is three times more expensive than was the system under British Rail.
	My final point is a plea to my right hon. Friend concerning mark 1 slam-door carriages. They were due to have been phased out or replaced by January this year, but that is not going to be achieved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about that.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will deem my observations to be positive rather than critical. I very much welcome the Bill.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) who, through his work on the Select Committee on Transport, can bring expertise to bear on this subject. I also appreciated the speech made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who worked in the transport sector before he became a Member of the House and can thus bring to life what is sometimes a rather dry subject.
	I very much welcome the Bill, which has as its theme the promotion of safety for the travelling public, and I wave it a metaphorical handkerchief as it passes through the House.
	I note the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and some hon. Members that the Bill contains nothing on road safety. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that that does not mean that the Government accord road safety policy less priority but, rather, that it is travelling at least as quickly in a separate but parallel lane.
	Travelling by rail is already much safer than travelling by road. We need to remember that point as we deal with the safety provisions in part 1. If we drive up safety on the railway and place all the costs on the tickets of the travelling public, we price people off a safer system and on to the roads, which are already less safe and which will then become more congested.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that we should make the trains slower. The difficulty with that is they would become less competitive compared to road travel. That is the wrong way to promote a coherent transport policy.
	It is important for the Government to send the travelling public a clear signal that their policy is to ensure that the costs of travelling by bus or rail will not rise faster than the costs of travelling by car. That is a key component of a coherent transport strategy, which the Government risk abandoning.
	With reference to part 1, safety must be paramount on the railways. Safety was improving under British Rail and has continued to improve since, but one death on the railways remains one death too many. It is not the case, as has been asserted sometimes—and, indeed, this afternoon—that a disaggregated or fragmented transport system is inherently more dangerous than an integrated one.
	The most disaggregated transport industry is civil aviation. The airlines do not run the airports or air traffic control. They do not own or maintain the planes: they lease them. Just about everything from baggage handling to meals is contracted out. There are many different airlines and owners of airports.
	The industry is highly fragmented, but flying is the safest means of travel. Air travel is extremely popular. Furthermore, in response to the arguments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I remind the House that the industry is entirely profit-driven. I reject the argument that there is conflict between fragmentation and safety and private ownership and safety. The record disproves that.

Don Foster: I have listened with interest to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. Is he not fundamentally wrong on this issue? Surely he accepts that there is a difference between monopoly and competition. In the airline industry, there is competition and that automatically drives up safety standards; no one wants to fly in an unsafe plane. In the rail industry, Railtrack was a monopoly so there was a conflict between passenger safety and shareholder profit.

George Young: I entirely reject that argument. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South deployed the argument that a fragmented industry was less safe than an integrated one. However, the safety record for civil aviation is even better than it is for the railways, yet the industry is the most fragmented that one could possibly find. It is subcontracted and specialised, yet it works. A comparison of civil aviation with rail substantiates the argument that there is nothing wrong with a privately owned disaggregated industry running a transport system.

George Stevenson: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take my word for it, I am sure that he will look at the documented evidence from the former chief executive of Railtrack who said that fragmentation had been bad for the industry, and from the train operating companies and so on. It is not my argument; it is documented throughout the industry.

George Young: Sadly, the statistics do not support the hon. Gentleman's argument. Safety has improved since privatisation. The railway is now safer than it was before privatisation, but we have to make it even safer. The hon. Gentleman's own Government have kept roughly the same structure that they inherited from the Conservatives. There is Railtrack, or Network Rail; there is a series of train operating companies with franchises; there are people who own the rolling stock; and there is a regulator. I did not intend to be so partisan, but I was driven to it by interventions.
	I am attracted by the policy of replicating the well-tested air accidents investigation branch and marine accident investigation branch models. When I was at the Department of Transport, I was impressed by the AAIB at Farnborough, which puts together after an accident a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing and pieces damaged. It is painstaking and methodical professional work against a background of tragedy, and I commend the AAIB for what it does.
	The AAIB does not face the potential conflicts of interest that confront Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. As the AAIB does not validate any particular design of aircraft or system of air traffic control, it is completely impartial in investigating what goes wrong. So I see the attractions of that model.
	It is possible to develop the opposite case, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South did, for what one might call an integrated approach, with constant contact between those investigating accidents and those monitoring safety on a daily basis. Under the proposals, the rail accident investigation branch will not receive all the reports that HMRI used to receive on signals passed at danger, severe congestion and so on. It will not have day-to-day contact with the operation of the railways, but against the background of the problems at Ladbroke Grove one can see the conflict of interest under the current regime. At the moment, the Health and Safety Executive must both discover the cause of the accident and decide whether to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 for any breaches of safety regulations. It is a public prosecution body; it can bring cases to court. Supposing, for the sake of argument, it has at a previous stage validated a particular layout of signals: one can see the potential conflict of interest.
	The proposed regime allows the RAIB to concentrate on discovering the cause of an accident without worrying about conflict of interest or about prosecuting, but that means that another body has to go round the course to see whether there has been an infringement of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. I have just three questions about this part of the Bill. What happens during the transitional period during which the new RAIB is set up and responsible only for inquiries but during which presumably many of the personnel come from HMRI and may have given advice under the previous regime? How are we to prevent the conflict of interest that is at the heart of the Bill in the short term?
	The explanatory notes tell us that the running costs of RAIB will be £1.85 million. Is that a net increase, or are the costs offset by reductions in the costs of HMRI, which will presumably no longer do the accident work? How does the new regime interface with the criminal justice system? The RAIB will be involved after an accident. HMRI will presumably decide whether to prosecute. If there has been a fatality, the British Transport police will be involved. The railway operators will be wanting to get the system up and running again. Some rather complicated choreography will have to be worked out if we are not to have duplication, lack of co-operation and delays in getting the railways up and running again.
	Turning to part 2, I have no difficulty with replacing the regulator with a board, which I gather will have four members. In considering who to appoint, the imperative for the Government must be to attract private capital back into the railways and restore confidence in railway investment following the demise of Railtrack. So I hope that the board will comprise people who understand how to attract private capital and retain investor confidence. Those on the board must not be agents of the Government, but as the responsibilities overlap to some extent with those of the Strategic Rail Authority, they need to be on roughly the same wavelength.
	The regulatory task will be different with the publicly owned Network Rail, rather than with Railtrack. There will be less emphasis on preventing excess profits and more on maintaining an income stream for private capital. The wisdom of Solomon will be required in fixing the track access charges, which are at the heart of the system; they are the main costs of the train operating companies on one hand and Network Rail's main income on the other.
	It is a good idea to try to depersonalise the Office of the Rail Regulator. There had been signs of an ego trip. Sadly, there have been some personal vendettas in the past and a lack of empathy with Railtrack when it existed. I hope that there will be slightly less of that with a board because the relationships between the industry's various components are crucial.
	There is a risk of losing the progress made in the past 10 years in gaining access to private capital. If we go back to the previous position whereby investment in the railways was constrained by what the Government could afford, we will have lost a lot of the advantage of the past 10 years. Since 1997, and until quite recently, one of the problems that the railways did not have was that of raising capital. Railtrack was able to spend every penny that it could raise. Then we had the débâcle, and now the industry cannot borrow what it needs from the private sector.
	I hope that the new board will build some bridges to re-establish investor confidence in the railways, so that, on top of what the Government are putting in, it can have a substantial injection of private capital. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport is exhibiting some agitation. If he wishes to relieve it by intervening, I should be happy to give way.

John Spellar: I am finding some difficulty with the model that the right hon. Gentleman seems to propose. He seems to suggest that in a situation where money kept being pushed at an inefficient company that was certainly not able to provide the service cost-effectively, a board of the regulator would have taken a more approving view of that company's coming around with the begging bowl—to use the regulator's words—to be relieved of the consequences of its inefficiency. That might work in the very short term in a bubble economy; it is no model for effective investment or a sustainable private enterprise.

George Young: It is not the case that the problem was solely an inefficient company; there was an inefficient Minister and the relationships broke down. That was at the heart of the Railtrack débâcle .

John Spellar: As the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there was a conflict between the regulator and Railtrack—indeed, the begging-bowl speech took place within a few days of the last general election—in no way can any argument be made that the regulator had been influenced by a Minister. The regulator's views had been determined by his judgment of the company's management. How could a board rationally have taken a different view of that company's efficiency?

George Young: The Government pulled the rug from under Railtrack because they wanted it to fail. [Interruption.] I hope that, at some point, there will be a full inquiry into Railtrack's demise, including into the Treasury's role, which was absolutely crucial in the weeks before the rug was finally pulled from under Railtrack. We saw the scene of the Secretary of State for Transport leaning over the patient, trying to encourage him back to health at the same time as he put his foot on the oxygen pipe, ensuring that the patient would expire.
	I want to make progress and move on to part 3, on the role of the British Transport police. After rail privatisation, the British Transport police were parked with the Secretary of State for Transport. As a matter of interest, it would be helpful if the Minister could say in his winding-up speech whether the Home Secretary's published figures on crime and on the number of police include or exclude the British Transport police. Some 75,000 crimes a year are reported by the British Transport police, and there are 2,100 police officers. Such figures are regularly published by the Home Office, but do they include the British Transport police?
	Will the Minister say whether British Transport police officers are armed, or whether they have to look to some of the other forces for that degree of specialisation? Will it be policy to have a separate brand for the British Transport police? At the moment, if one sees a policeman on a railway station, one does not know if he is in the ordinary police or the British Transport police. It may be policy to have both looking the same, or it may be that there is a desire to develop a different identity and culture for the BTP. Will the Minister shed light on that?
	When the Minister winds up, will he explain the relationship between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary on responsibility for the BTP. Clearly, most of the expertise in that area rests with the Home Office, whereas it is a small part of the Department for Transport. The consultation paper states that the Secretary of State for Transport would
	"have regard for the Home Secretary's primary role in policing matters."
	It continues:
	"The Secretary of State would undertake his duties alongside the Home Secretary."
	What exactly is the relationship? Is the Department for Transport simply a conduit for Home Office initiatives on law and order, or is there a separate and independent element of advice in the Department for Transport that it adds to advice from the Home Office?

Andrew MacKinlay: I endorse almost everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is unusual but, for me, very good. Is it not the case that one of the things that the Minister must do tonight is reassure those in the British Transport police who work on the London underground that they will not be absorbed into the Metropolitan police, which would be unhelpful for them and for the travelling public, and which I understand is under consideration at present? I am certainly against it.

George Young: Although the hon. Gentleman posed the question to me, I am smart enough to see that he aimed it at someone else. I am sure that the Minister will address that issue. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to establish the BTP as a separate authority and not to integrate part of it into the Metropolitan police. The words of assurance that he seeks, however, had better come from someone else.
	To conclude, this is a worthy if unexciting Bill, and, as far as I am concerned, it can have a green light. 5.27 pm

David Cairns: Like all Members who have spoken, I support the Bill, and I commend the various expert speeches that we have heard by Labour Members and the one that we have just heard by a distinguished former Secretary of State for Transport.
	I want to commend the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) particularly with regard to his wise injunction that we do not exaggerate the level of accidents in the rail industry. It is a comparatively safe industry, and although we all aspire to make it safer, we should not scaremonger among the public about how dangerous it is. An analogy exists in relation to crime. We know that the fear of crime in people's minds is far higher than the reality. The fear of crime, however, has a knock-on effect on people's behaviour in relation to whether they go out, which has a knock-on effect on the streets and the environment in which they live. Similarly, if the fear of an accident on the railways far outstrips the likelihood of it happening in reality, people will be put off from using the railways, which will have a knock-on effect on their long-term viability.
	I therefore applaud the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and those of the Secretary of State—people might say, "He would say that, wouldn't he", but it is true. We should send out the message that although we are taking steps to set up this accident investigation branch, it is not because of some enormous crisis that needs to be addressed. It is because we are learning from best practice, learning the lessons that we need to learn from tragedies, and moving forward to make the railways even safer. There have been tragedies, however, and lives have been lost. It would be glib and offensive to say that there are no problems on the railways and no lessons to be learned. A balance must be struck.
	The current arrangements are fragmentary and are in need of improvement. Lord Cullen identified in his report the need for a single investigatory body, which will act quickly and transparently. He was also looking for a body that would have the force to make recommendations that would be implemented and followed through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—who has just left the Chamber—was advocating in his well-argued speech. The existence of lacunae in the system was borne out by evidence to the Cullen inquiry. The joint rail unions spoke of their concern about the relatively low number of investigations. Counsel for the bereaved and injured of the Southall and Ladbroke tragedies were worried about the lack of transparency in the system. Passenger groups expressed repeated concern about the lack of machinery to implement the recommendations of investigations and inquiries. The Bill is to be applauded if it addresses those problems.
	Several hon. Members noted that the air accident and marine accident branches have existed for many years. By all accounts, they work well. However, the railways are complex. I listened with interest to the exchanges between the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on the fragmentation of the rail industry compared with the fragmentation of the aviation industry. Those are complicated matters. Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I would be happy to serve on the Committee, which I suppose is a pitch to whoever makes that decision. The complexity of the different regimes would repay scrutiny in Committee so that we learn lessons from them and decide what is appropriate.
	The paramount consideration is the need for the independent rail accident investigation to work closely with the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and, ultimately, the Government. Lord Cullen had to balance those factors. In establishing an independent body, he had to decide whether to run the risk of removing it from the decision-making structures to such an extent that he weakened its impact. In the inquiry, he said:
	"I have to weigh the potential disadvantages, the most significant of which is the loss of direct connection between the investigator and the regular contact with the operation of safety systems. However, on balance I consider that the stronger arguments are in favour of change, and I accordingly recommend that the responsibility for the investigation of accidents should be entrusted to an independent body which is set up for the purpose."
	Lord Cullen is flagging up a warning note that when the policy is implemented the independent body does not spin off too far from the mainstream where the decisions are made.
	Hon. Members said that 10 professionals will work for the branch with eight support staff. As a complete layman, I have to say that that sounds a small number, but perhaps the reason for it will become clear in Committee when we receive an outline of their duties and responsibilities and know how they will co-operate with other agencies.
	The decision to replace the single regulator with a board has been universally welcomed. It is sensible and in line with practice in other privatised utilities. The Bill makes it clear that the board will be slimline, independent and focused, with a majority of non-executive members. Is it too much to ask that they know something about the railways? The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire spoke about the need to have people who attract private capital. That is undoubtedly true. I appreciate that the board will not be same as the Strategic Rail Authority. I have been impressed by the knowledge, experience and commitment to the railways that the new faces at the SRA have demonstrated. It must have people with experience of the private sector and the railways, which it regulates, who would be suited to serving on the board. I know that the branch board primarily has an economic regulatory function, but I would welcome people with experience of the railways serving on it. Of course we know that that was not always the case with the people who took key decisions at Railtrack.
	The board will have a variety of tasks. It will have to juggle viewpoints and experiences. There will undoubtedly be stresses between the need to keep it small and tightly focused, and the need for its members to have a wide variety of experience.
	There is specific mention of the need for Scotland, Wales and the various English regions to at least be represented. I shall be looking at how that can be done. Would individuals each have a remit to represent the views of a region, or would that representation be drawn from the experiences of the people appointed to the board? That can be discussed in Committee.
	I want to say a few words about other safety implications that are not related to accidents on the railways. I have in mind the safety of stations. This argument may seem esoteric, and I appreciate that there have not been any major disasters connected with station buildings, but this is a live issue in my constituency. Railtrack decided that Gourock station was unsafe and, with no regard to anybody else and completely against everybody's opinion, it set about spending millions of pounds to make it safe. That money could have gone towards a larger and better development proposal to benefit the entire community.
	Despite the wishes of myself, the Member of the Scottish Parliament, the local council and the developers, who have all met Railtrack, and the views expressed by the local community that the station is not unsafe and that millions of pounds should not be spent on a Victorian white elephant, Railtrack has gone ahead and spent the money. I have been wondering how I could appeal that decision. The Strategic Rail Authority said that the matter was not its concern, and as, thankfully, no accident has happened, the matter does not fall within the remit of the various accident investigation boards.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that a better use for the millions of pounds to which he refers would have been to employ more British transport police officers? One way to improve passenger safety in stations and on trains is to have more policemen and women on the beat. Would my hon. Friend like the extra strength and authority given to the British transport police in the Bill to be followed up by extra funds?

David Cairns: I agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make those points if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I am speaking about safety connected with the fabric of the building, and not the endangerment of the public by criminal activity.
	This matter is vital to my constituency. In the spurious guise of tackling safety considerations, Railtrack has squandered millions of pounds of public money propping up a Victorian white elephant and doing work to the sea wall beneath the station, which is completely unnecessary—it could not be justified by any independent assessor. However, as the issue showed up on Railtrack's radar as one of safety, we have no avenue of appeal.
	The money has been spent, the contracts have been signed and a brilliant redevelopment opportunity in my constituency has been squandered. Although I am delighted that that terrible company, which was incapable of giving a straight answer and had a "now you see it, now you don't" attitude to funding, no longer exists, my constituency has lost out badly. I hope that Members of Parliament will be able to approach the new regulator and appeal such decisions before contracts are signed.
	I turn briefly to part 4 on shipping and alcohol. As a Member of Parliament for what is still a busy port, although not as busy as it once was, I welcome the Government's plans to regulate alcohol consumption in the maritime industry. I have to confess that I was slightly surprised that regulations, which apply to other modes of transport, do not already apply to shipping. People in charge of passenger ferries are every bit as liable on safety grounds as those who drive cars and buses, and they should be subject to the same breath test regime.
	Although the Secretary of State greatly helped me when he responded to my earlier intervention, I am still slightly confused as to the role of non-professional maritime activity in Scotland, as opposed to that in England and Wales.
	Let us consider the example of someone who is operating a jet-ski on Loch Lomond while under the influence of alcohol—although one has to be rich to own a jet-ski, it is a very popular past-time on Loch Lomond—and whose behaviour prompts a call to the police on the suspicion that they are under the influence of alcohol, even though no accident occurs. Will the new regime apply to that person in the same way that it would apply if they were using a jet-ski on Lake Windermere? My right hon. Friend told me that if an accident occurred and the procurator fiscal was looking to bring a case against the person concerned for that reason, the fact that they were under the influence of alcohol could be taken into consideration in the procurator fiscal's contemplating the level of charge.
	However, I am not talking about cases where an accident occurs. Many of the people who are done for drunk-driving have not in fact caused accidents; they are pulled over because they were weaving all over the road. If the new regime will not apply in Scotland, I should like some assurance—now, in writing or in Committee—as to the measures that law enforcement agencies in Scotland could pursue to ensure that the same tough and rigorous laws that apply south of the border are also applied north of the border.
	I want to finish with a quick word on the London underground. The idea that what happens on the underground is of interest only to London Members of Parliament has always amused me: that is simply not the case. Many hundreds of thousands of people travel into London from outside the Greater London area and use the underground, and the underground and the vitality of the London economy are tremendously important to the rest of the UK. We are talking about taxpayers' money that is waiting to be invested in the underground, and it is as much money paid by my constituents as it is money paid by London constituents. I am very pleased that the Mayor of London is at last seeing the sense of allowing the Government to continue with their policy, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long. Reform of, and investment in, the London underground are vital not just for London but for the whole of the British economy. So I encourage my colleagues on the Front Bench to ensure that the investment that the Government have committed to the underground, but which has been held up by the Mayor of London's dogmatic attitude, is delivered into the system to make those improvements.
	On that final, slightly controversial note, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it has a speedy passage through both Houses. 5.42 pm

Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), and I am particularly pleased to see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in his place. Two weeks ago, he and I had a very profitable debate on transport safety in Wiltshire, and I intend to touch on that issue once or twice in the next few minutes.
	I welcome the Bill, for which there has been a great deal of cross-party support. There are of course omissions, however, and I want to touch on them in my speech. I have a very fond recollection of the Health and Safety Executive. Before being elected to this place, I was involved in safety for one of the largest industrial complexes on the south coast, and I worked very closely with the HSE in that role. I grew to appreciate its expertise and dedication, and to know very well how under-resourced it was, and how difficult it was for it to carry out the functions required of it. Indeed, it was difficult for it to do anything more than the scratch the surface—a fact that left a great impression on me. I also learned that there was a slight lack of specialisation within the HSE, which it itself recognised. It is very difficult to spread the discipline of safety across the field. Certain areas have specific needs and specific quanta of expertise, and I imagine that that is why we have the air accidents investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch. Rightly, we are now to have a rail accident investigation branch as well.
	I do not want to deal principally with rail but rather to address one of the major omissions that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) alluded to, and which relates to roads. Shortly after I was elected, I was present at the scene of a road traffic accident on the A36. A police constable—the constable with whom I was supposed to be visiting areas in my constituency that suffer from petty criminality—was summoned to the scene, and it rapidly became apparent that this was a major incident. It transpired that a family of four had lost their lives when a lorry crossed on to the wrong side of the road. That was deeply traumatic for all concerned, not least the emergency services who attended. My regard for them, already high, went up by leaps and bounds.
	I mention that because we need a sense of proportion when considering accidents that occur on our transport network. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the accident rate on our roads vastly exceeds that on other forms of public and private transport. At Potters Bar, seven people tragically lost their lives, and 31 people died at Ladbroke Grove. However, day in, day out, 10 people a day lose their lives on our roads. Since 1997, there have been 136 rail deaths, but well over 17,000 deaths on our roads. Clearly, one's chances of sustaining a serious injury or dying on our roads greatly exceed one's chances of suffering a similar catastrophe on other forms of transport. We need to get that across, not least because we do not want people to desert public transport to use the roads and paradoxically, as other Members have said, drive up the sum total of road deaths.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making a good point; we need to keep a sense of proportion. Does he accept that the Health and Safety Executive has not always exercised a light touch on the railways? For example, I understand that if the speaker system does not work in one carriage in a train, it is grounded and cannot run until the public announcement system is replaced. Does he think that a heavy-handed approach?

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend has made a good point. Indeed, that may be one of the drivers behind the creation of a rail accident investigation branch, which would take over many of the HSE's functions. I feel very strongly, however, that there should be no latitude on safety on public transport. We all know of near misses—many hon. Members have referred to near misses in various guises this afternoon—where things have developed from apparently trivial slips or omissions. I therefore counsel caution before trivialising cases of the sort to which my right hon. Friend referred.
	Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—PACTS—corresponds with most hon. Members and has said:
	"Someone needs to do some hard thinking and ask why we are prepared to invest so heavily in rail safety and so little in road safety, which offers much better value for money per life saved."
	That sounds harsh—when talking about lives saved we do not necessarily want to talk about the cost. However, in public health terms, we must.
	In 1997, the Government established a ministerial responsibility for public health. I have argued elsewhere that the post has not been a great success, particularly in driving down the number of casualties on our transport system. However, that area, I respectfully suggest, is of legitimate concern to a public health Minister with cross-cutting responsibility who is surely tasked with driving down mortality and morbidity. I fear, however, that the intervention of the relevant Minister has not produced that result, which is a pity. I am disappointed that the Bill does not mention road safety, given the emphasis on safety in other forms of transport. I very much hope that Ministers will address that omission in Committee.
	I represent a rural area, and it is incumbent on me to mention the problems of the countryside. In the rural White Paper, the Government rightly said:
	"Public concern about road safety in rural areas is growing. Levels of traffic are increasing faster on rural roads than on urban roads . . . Road accidents on rural roads are more likely to be fatal, for all types of road users, than in towns."
	The Government's road safety strategy says:
	"We are therefore proposing to develop a new hierarchy of roads defined by their function and quality, which would combine flexibility at local level with consistency nationally."
	The road safety strategy made it clear that primary legislation was required for the rural road hierarchy to be implemented. I have to say, however, that the Minister's response to my debate on road safety in Wiltshire earlier this month was somewhat lukewarm. I hope that he will dispel that impression today. It was particularly unfortunate given that the debate took place on the same day that the Bill had its first outing.
	It is a great pity that Ministers have not acted on the Transport Committee's criticism of the Government's lack of urgency in introducing a rural road hierarchy. That criticism was made in June 2001. Here we are in January 2003, yet we have heard nothing beyond blandishments and the promise of things to come. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct me if that is a misapprehension.
	The grim reaper is particularly fond of inappropriate speed as an immediate way of dispatching people on rural roads, but speed acts in more subtle ways than that. It intimidates walkers, cyclists and horse riders, and generally degrades the enjoyment of the countryside for those who live there or visit it for leisure purposes. The Government's failure to incorporate their hierarchy of roads into the Bill, where it would fit very well, is a missed public health opportunity.
	In dealing with accidents on roads, it is important to deal only with the evidence. A firm evidence base is essential because there are many paradoxes in transport safety, and paradoxes lead to the potential for political opportunism. The Minister will remember that we discussed examples of that in a lighter moment during the debate two weeks ago. One paradox concerns the removal of white lines on roads where one would intuitively imagine that that would make them more dangerous, not safer. In fact, the early evidence in Wiltshire suggests that that is not the case. A great deal in this field is surprisingly counter-intuitive.
	A road accident investigation branch would help to introduce some rigour into the investigation of road traffic accidents, both collectively and individually, and could make suggestions on how they can be prevented. For example, the 54 per cent. reduction, from the 1981 to 1985 baseline, in those killed or seriously injured in accidents on roads in Wiltshire, compared with a 47 per cent. reduction nationwide, requires explanation. It should be the function of a road accident investigation branch to shed light on that and determine how best practice, if that is what it is, in Wiltshire can be applied more generally.
	Clearly, the Bill will involve costs. The regulatory impact assessment identifies a staffing level of 22 for the rail accident investigation branch. There is some controversy as to the exact number, but we can agree that it will be fairly small. A staff of 22 is pretty lean and mean. An equivalent body for roads, given the unremitting nature of road accidents, day in, day out, would not be able to do anything with that number of staff. The cost of road traffic accidents runs into many billions of pounds a year, and the potential savings to the public purse and to others would dwarf any outlay.
	I warmly welcome the Bill, but I regret the omission of the promised hierarchy of rural roads and of a road accident investigation branch, which would complement the rail accident investigation branch extremely well. I urge the Minister to think again.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the chance to speak on Second Reading, as I broadly support the Bill, like other hon. Members who have spoken. I speak as a rail commuter of 34 years' standing. I have never yet driven to the House of Commons. I have travelled by train every day, and I feel much safer being driven by my splendid ASLEF driver than I would if I were driving, even at a relatively low speed. That is a comment on my driving, as much as on the safety of the railway system. We have spoken glowingly this afternoon about how safe rail travel is, but we should remember that the genesis of the Bill was a number of serious railway accidents. Before we are all swallowed up in the warm glow of consensus, we should remember the things that have gone wrong and those that are still not right.
	I offer the House a personal anecdote. Just over three years ago, it was suggested through a third party that I might take photographs of the state of the track north of Hadley Wood tunnel, an area that I know quite well, on the east coast main line, and send the photographs to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was responsible for transport at that time. I did not do that, because I did not have time and I was not minded to do it, but it was a serious suggestion. Some time later, there was an accident at Hatfield, and some time after that, an accident at Potters Bar. Potters Bar is the next station north of Hadley Wood, and Hatfield is another three stations further along on the same stretch of the east coast main line. I suggest that there might have been some good purpose in my photographing that track, and sending it to the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, although of course I take no responsibility for the terrible things that happened later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) suggested that we should study accidents that did not result in serious injury or death, but which illustrate the problem. I shall describe such a case, which occurred at a siding in Yorkshire, where the nose of the points was removed—that is, the central metal part of the points, where they join. Six months later a train was directed over the points and was derailed. It was a coal train and no one was hurt, but it was still a serious derailment. Why did it happen?
	First, the points should have been clipped—that is, they should have been clamped together on one side so that they could not be moved. Secondly, fuses controlling the signals should have been removed. Thirdly, reminder appliances should have been placed over the operating switch in the signal box. Fourthly, notice detailing the non-availability of the points should have been issued to all drivers and signals in the area. None of that was done. The responsible contractor was Jarvis, the contractor responsible for the track at Potters Bar.
	There is a problem with contracting and the contracting culture in the railway industry, and I do not stand alone in saying that. I refer to the comments by Stanley Hall, who spent a lifetime with British Rail as a senior signalling and safety officer at the highest level, who stated in "Rail" magazine this month:
	"One of the worst decisions of those who designed the privatisation structure has proved to be the reliance of the industry on outside help . . . No one wants another organisational upheaval but the present system is unsafe and expensive."
	This month we saw Network Rail take maintenance in the Reading area in house, with the promise of two more areas being taken in house. That is to do not only with cost but with safety as well.
	We should remember that even though travelling by rail is safe, and even though railway travel has become safer, it is still potentially very dangerous. One accident on a railway line can cause a horrendous number of deaths. I am old enough to remember the Harrow and Wealdstone disaster, which was terrifying and awesome.
	I have made my point: the Bill goes in the right direction, but to be effective it must affect what happens on the railway track now. I could relate one or two more anecdotes told to me by staff who work in the railway industry—for example, about contractors who dispense with the use of a look-out when they are working at night. There have been fatalities of railway workers, who are as important as passengers in matters of life and death. The contracting record is not good. I look forward to the contractors being taken over progressively by Network Rail, and a much safer railway environment for the foreseeable future.

Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I also wish to give a general welcome to the Bill. I think that that gives the Minister a full set of parties supporting the Bill.
	Much has been said in this debate about safety on the railways, and the Secretary of State said that safety was paramount. Many of the current worries about rail safety have undoubtedly been exacerbated by the privatisation of the railways, which has ensured that a multiplicity of organisations are responsible for rail safety, including train operating companies, Railtrack—now Network Rail—the Health and Safety Executive and others. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) pointed out, Network Rail has recently demonstrated the case by renationalising part of the line between Reading and Paddington to keep prices down and ensure the quality of the work. Victims of the Potters Bar crash have blamed Jarvis, the contractor responsible for maintaining the tracks in the area, for failing to carry out its work to the required standard, leading directly to the crash.
	Those worries continue on the railway and also in respect of the London underground proposals. Much has also been said about the derailment of a train on the Central line on Saturday. The RMT has expressed serious concerns about what is happening as London Underground heads towards the PPP. Indeed, one of the weekend newspapers reported it as saying that a Piccadilly line driver had recently expressed concern about a banging noise, but was told that if he refused to drive the train and it was found to be safe, he would have to "face the consequences". If that is true, it is a terrible indictment of what is happening on the London underground. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made a very good point about how safety should be pre-emptive as well as reactive. That must be considered as the situation progresses.
	It seems to us self-evident that privatisation has exacerbated the problem through the profit motive and the dispersal of responsibility. We believe that only by running the rail network on a not-for-profit basis can we ensure that safety is put before profit. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) cited the airline industry in support of his argument, but I am not sure how that position can hold water, given the perilous financial straits of many airlines. Some airlines are running on a state subsidy, while many large American ones have sued for chapter 11 protection because of their financial position.
	Much was made of high-speed rail links, especially in Japan. However, its Bullet trains were brought into being with specifically designed new lines. One of the problems of the rail system in this country is that there has been no investment for many years, which makes it much more difficult to upgrade lines so that they can take new high-speed trains. That has been demonstrated by the difficulties encountered on the west coast main line.
	We are pleased that the Government have decided to implement the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry and accepted that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate could not adequately perform the dual role of safety regulator and accident investigator. We accept that the new body will be better placed to deal with investigations into rail accidents.
	Like many hon. Members, however, we have some concerns about the specifics of the Bill. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I referred to the definition of accidents. While the Bill requires the new body to investigate serious accidents, it allows it discretion over whether to investigate non-serious accidents. In my mind, a problem therefore immediately arises about what constitutes a serious accident, as the Bill gives no definition. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked whether a serious accident was one in which people lost their lives. How is such an accident defined? In many cases, it will be obvious that an accident is serious, but there could be a fairly large grey area, so it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify his definition.
	There is a potential problem of accidents that may not superficially be serious—whatever the definition—but have grave implications for safety in other parts of the system. It is worth remembering that large parts of the east coast main line were effectively closed for a long time after the Hatfield accident because of worries about equipment on the rails. The Bill does not adequately cover that.
	A relatively minor accident that disclosed a fundamental flaw in some aspect of equipment or use might have a serious effect on the whole rail system. It would have been helpful if the Government had laid the regulations before the House and included definitions in the Bill. That could have assured us that the new bodies were committed to undertaking a range of investigations into all sorts of accidents rather than allowing the system to slip back into its old ways of investigating only obviously serious accidents.
	I am not clear about the way in which the new body links with other organisations, especially the Health and Safety Executive, which might have a role in investigating apparently minor accidents. How would it cross-check with the rail accident investigation branch? For example, how would evidence taken by the Health and Safety Executive be used if a further matter came to light that would encourage the new body to investigate the incident further? Would the new body be informed automatically of findings during investigations into apparently minor incidents that might have wider implications? Would it be able or obliged to take over that investigation if the issue affected the rest of the rail network?
	The Transport Salaried Staffs Association raised anxieties in its briefing for the debate about confidentiality, especially about clause 8(4). The briefing states:
	"It is expected that regulations will provide that a witness statement given to the RAIB may not be disclosed to a third party (such as the police or the Health and Safety Executive) without consent, or a court order. For RAIB to be effective it is absolutely essential that operational staff have confidence in its integrity and expertise. Confidence in RAIB is dependent upon employees being assured that these statements . . . are treated as confidential."
	It argues that those matters should be specified in the Bill. I understand its point and agree in principle.
	However, what would happen if the position were reversed, and an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive unearthed information that made it more appropriate for the RAIB to take it over? Could statements to the Health and Safety Executive be passed to the new body, or would the RAIB have to start from scratch?
	Other hon. Members have mentioned clause 102, which gives details of the railway safety levy. There appears to be confusion about that because one briefing suggests that the provision relates to the RAIB, but it appears to refer only to the Health and Safety Executive. It is not clear who will pay the levy because that is to be stated in regulations. Subsection (5)(b) simply provides for the Secretary of State to determine
	"the persons by whom the levy is to be paid".
	Disputes have occurred in the past between various parties, such as Railtrack, the train operators and the contractors about responsibility for rail accidents. That has been mentioned especially in the context of Potters Bar. At whom does the Minister intend to aim the levy? Will contractors such as Jarvis, as well as the train operating companies and, presumably, Network Rail, be obliged to contribute to the levy? It has already been said that much of the money in the rail network is public money, but there should be fair sharing between all the agencies for the levy.
	The Secretary of State skipped perfunctorily over part 2, which relates to the establishment of the Office of the Rail Regulator. We would generally welcome that. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) mentioned the responsibility of members of the body for Scotland, Wales and the English regions.
	It may not entirely surprise the Minister to be told that we would urge upon him the need to ensure adequate Scottish and Welsh representation on the Committee. Indeed, there may be a case for a separate Scottish Committee to consider matters relating to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but this is as much a practical as a political point. He should be aware that the structure and control of the railway system in Scotland is not identical to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, the Scottish Parliament has some powers in these areas.
	Rail journeys that commence and end in Scotland are within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. Those that begin in Scotland but cross over the border are within the ambit of this House. The result is that control of most of the commuter traffic in Scotland, and in particular commuter traffic going into Glasgow and Edinburgh, is devolved, while control of intercity rail travel is essentially reserved. That leads to some strange anomalies. In my Angus constituency, which is on the main east coast line, many services that are effectively local services for the people in the area are intercity trains reserved to Westminster.
	Therefore, I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to this matter, and not simply to dismiss this request for separate Scottish representation. It is important that the Scottish Parliament be fully involved in discussions on all aspects of the railways that relate to Scotland, particularly within the boundaries of Scotland, for which it is responsible.

Andrew MacKinlay: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, a substantial part of the Bill relates to the British Transport police. Under clause 74, Scotland is included. This will now be the primary Act for the British Transport police; it is not amending legislation with regard to it. On the face of it, much of the Bill relates exclusively to England and Wales.

Michael Weir: The policing of the railways would presumably be a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament, as the normal police process is devolved. That is another example of the need to make sure that there is separate Scottish representation. That must be taken on board, because otherwise not only will the Scottish Parliament have no input in respect of devolved rail services, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it will have no input into their policing.

Linda Perham: Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I was pleased to listen to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), speaking with great knowledge and experience of the railway industry and as an engineer. We in this country do not value our engineers enough. I have been married to an engineer for more than 30 years and I certainly value him.
	It is very important for Parliament to make laws to improve transport safety, so I extend a general welcome to the Bill, in particular its provisions to enhance and modernise the functions of the British Transport police. I spoke this afternoon to the chief constable of the British Transport police, Ian Johnston, whom I have known for a number of years, since his time as an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The service that he commands is very supportive of the Bill's provisions.
	The British Transport police occupy a unique place in the world of the emergency services. It is a flexible service that facilitates and adds value to the work of other emergency services, while carrying out its own priorities of crime control and accident prevention. We are not always aware of its presence, but, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, last year it dealt with 75,000 crimes and 40,000 minor offences.
	The BTP have developed particular expertise in controlling graffiti, policing sports fans and handling major incidents, including terrorist actions. While I am on the subject of major incidents, I am sure that the House will join me in sending our best wishes to those involved in dealing with the frightening accident on the Central line at Chancery lane on Saturday. As I mentioned when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, 800 people were involved and over 30 were injured. Large numbers of people in my London borough, including me, travel on the Central line and I have eight Central line stations in my constituency. The Central line around Bank is the busiest part of the underground, and losing the Central line service for any length of time is a huge inconvenience to my constituents as well as all commuters and visitors to the capital.
	As soon as the incident was reported, the BTP responded, along with colleagues from City of London police, the Metropolitan police, the fire brigade and ambulance services. London Underground also provided a rapid specialist response. The first BTP officer was on the scene within seven minutes of the call, and assisted the other emergency services in evacuating the passengers from the train.
	The role of the police service in the early stages of a major incident is to facilitate the actions of the rescue and medical services. A major incident was declared by the BTP duty officer following a quick assessment at the scene. In such cases, it is imperative that a quick assessment is made, as there is potential for terrorist incidents in the current climate. The BTP has the expertise and training to make a rapid assessment of incidents on the underground and the railway network, and it should be praised for having done so in this instance. About 30 BTP officers attended the scene, and the co-operation between the services at Chancery lane was very good indeed.
	Setting up a new police authority for the BTP should be widely welcomed—indeed, it has been in the House this afternoon. That will be helpful in putting BTP officers on an equally constitutional footing to those of Home Office forces, which is important in a number of ways—for example, helping to get powers similar to those of Home Office forces to employ community support officers. An independent authority will help to address perceptions of partiality in terms of the force being too weak or too tough on the industry.
	The establishment of an independent authority will address issues of confidence, trust, accountability and transparency, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) during his intervention on the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). It is disappointing, however, that the opportunity has not been taken to formalise the BTP's extended jurisdiction, which has been secured temporarily by anti-terrorism legislation.
	At present, the BTP run the risk of losing their extended powers, not because people do not believe that they should have them, but because, in the eyes of the legal purists, they were secured by the "back door" of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Bill's placing of jurisdiction on a statutory rather than a contractual footing is a satisfactory arrangement. Placing BTP pay and conditions in a regulatory framework governed by the Secretary of State is a helpful move in the force in modernising and achieving comparability with the Home Office forces.
	I shall briefly discuss other provisions. I welcome the measures relating to alcohol limits for mariners and aviators, but I am one who happens to believe that the alcohol limits should be reduced from 80 mg to 50 mg for drivers and mariners. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to that.
	Finally, the introduction of the rail accident investigation branch will provide greater clarity of responsibility and a speedier understanding of the cause of accidents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered that and said in response to my intervention that, had the Bill been in place, the chief inspector of the RAIB would have been involved in considering the Central line accident. If the RAIB is to be effective in determining primacy at an accident site, it must benefit from legislative backing in resolving potential conflicts between safety and criminal justice requirements.
	I would have liked the Bill to achieve a greater exploration of the scope and powers of the RAIB, but I hope that those issues will be covered in Committee, where I hope to serve.

Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to be called at last. I would have found sitting here throughout the debate as some people find enduring the railways under this Government were it not for the fact that that has been alleviated by some good speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), whom it is a pleasure to follow.
	Of course, I agree with the vast bulk of the Bill. It is sensible to set up a special body to investigate accidents, particularly if that will lead to fewer fees for lawyers when such things happen. Also, I of course think it important that skippers of ships should not be inebriated. One can but approve the provision about drunkenness on ships, but I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it will be confined to ships, and that he will apply a light touch to the tiller when it comes to those who enjoy the very lavish hospitality at events such as the Henley regatta. Drunken oarsmen should not be subject to excessively draconian enforcement, as they are not intended to fall within the dominion of the Bill.
	I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), a former Secretary of State for Transport, said about the role of the British Transport police. Their duties could be alleviated if it were made absolutely clear whether it was an offence to take a bicycle on a train. I know that my right hon. Friend is a keen cyclist, as I am. I hope that the Minister will recognise that bikes are clean, green and far safer in regard to other road users than cars. Their use should be encouraged. I should like the law to be applied uniformly. Everyone should have the right to take their bike on the train.
	I am interested in one particular element of the Bill—what the Secretary of State called, in his opening remarks, the restructuring of the Office of the Rail Regulator. That is a euphemism: the regulator is going to be abolished, not restructured. The single regulator will be replaced by an office with at least four people appointed by the Secretary of State. There will be a separate chairman and chief executive, at a cost, according to the explanatory notes, of at least £200,000. However, that is the least of my objections to the proposal. I want to probe the Government's motives in abolishing the rail regulator in that way. Is the proposal the best thing for the rail industry and, above all, the travelling public?
	It is easy to see why the Government have chosen this option when one remembers the murky events of 7 October 2001. That was when Railtrack was done to death by the Government, and when shareholders, who included my valiant, Labour-voting secretary, were despoiled. That led to a further deterioration in railway performance, and to a huge extra burden on the taxpayer. We must not forget that, in 2000, Railtrack was able to raise £2 billion on the market.
	Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out, safety improved throughout the period of privatisation. Last summer, the proportion of trains running on time fell from 83 per cent. to 81 per cent. That compares with the 90 per cent. achieved under Railtrack.
	To understand the disaster that the Government have wreaked on the railways, one must go back to the moment when the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), decided to ignore the regulator and destroy Railtrack. It was technically in the power of the regulator, Tom Winsor, to increase the funding to Railtrack by raising the fees payable by the 25 train operating companies. It was also possible for the regulator to order an interim review of Railtrack's funding and to save the company. In retrospect, we can see that such a move would have saved the taxpayer a great deal of money, and obviated the need to pay out £500 million or £1 billion in compensation.
	Not only was the regulator circumvented, but he was threatened by the former Secretary of State with the legal extinction of his powers. The Government were less than candid about that threat, which eventually cost the former Secretary of State his job, although he made seven heroic attempts to hang on to it. It would be fair to say that the refusal of the regulator to lie down and die incurred the deep displeasure of the Government and, I suspect, that it led Ministers not merely to abolish him but also his office and to repose his powers in the hands of at least four other people appointed by the Government.
	Do the Government care at all about the independence of the successor office? My case is that they should care and I shall set it out briefly. The regulator should be free to safeguard the economic health of the railways and that means operating in the interests of the travelling public and of the potential investor in the railways, and not merely acting on behalf of the Treasury.
	Anyone who has flown over Britain, as I did on Saturday, can see the need for that investment. There are plenty of new prisons all over the country and plenty of shut Beeching railways, with grassed-over lines. It is fascinating. Everywhere one looks, however, one sees snarled-up, choked-up traffic—testimony to the failure of the Government's transport policy. We need an independent rail regulator not only to decide how much Network Rail needs, as he will by the end of the year, but also because he can stand up to the Treasury and reassure passengers as well as those who are thinking of investing in rail.
	Rail needs massive investment and we need someone who will not be needlessly—[Interruption.] The Minister of State speaks from—what is it called? [Hon. Members: "A sedentary position."]—or sitting down, to put it in Anglo-Saxon.
	We need a regulator who will not deter investment by being subject to political manipulation and abuse. We need someone who will not be pointlessly controversial or on an ego trip, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has pointed out, but who will be firm with the Government in the interests of the travelling public and the potential investor.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure me, but I am not convinced that the new office proposed in the Bill will have that independence. Is the Government's intention that the new office of rail regulation should be composed of poodles and lap dogs, or will it be genuinely independent? The City was truly shocked by the way in which the Government rode roughshod over the present regulator and seized control of Railtrack. By that action, they undermined the confidence of potential investors in rail and we are all paying for it.
	The Government have a bad record for trying to nobble regulators. We saw their scandalous behaviour recently in the matter of Sir William Stubbs and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The net result, tragically, was not only to frustrate the legitimate expectations of thousands of hard-working A-level students but also, staggeringly and very sadly, to undermine confidence in A-levels themselves, which have served this country well for the past 50 years and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's point germane to the Bill?

Boris Johnson: You will divine that the point is wholly germane, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it relates to the Government's ruthless abuse of regulators.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Government will guarantee that the replacement Office of the Rail Regulator will be truly independent and that they will reassure the travelling public of that. The new office should be allowed to guarantee the economic health of the railways and to protect passengers and future investors from disastrous political interference of the kind that we have seen. If the Government can give us those guarantees, I shall be more than happy to support the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: I have four brief comments. The first is about the British Transport police. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State use this opportunity to deal with the extended jurisdiction of the British Transport police that was provided under anti-terrorism legislation? As he knows, under the provisions of that legislation, that jurisdiction is time limited and will expire. We can scrutinise the Bill in the Standing Committee and we should take this chance to deal with that matter. Will he also confirm that the British Transport police provisions will apply to Scotland? I notice that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), in his normal knee-jerk reaction to anything that seems to break up the United Kingdom by stealth was happy to welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position.
	On the question of what I call the interface between the UK and Scottish legislation—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and the Secretary of State covered— in one or two areas the division between the responsibilities of the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Executive might be too inflexible in practice. I can certainly see the logic of some of the divisions of responsibilities, but it seems strange, for example, that the position of non-professional mariners and the power to enter certain places are to be left to the Scottish Parliament, but the Westminster Parliament will deal with powers to arrest on ships and aeroplanes. In the attempt to be logical, an inflexible arrangement may have been established. I hope that we can examine that matter in Committee.
	Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome the Bill in most respects. However, I wish to make two further suggestions. I support the abolition of the Office of the Rail Regulator, but I do not support its replacement by an office of rail regulation. I take the view that now that we have a Strategic Rail Authority, which is rightly operating in a much more proactive fashion, we do not need so many regulators. Is it not time to simplify the regulatory system, just as we have simplified the system of ownership and train operating companies, rather than coming back in a few years with another proposal, this time to abolish the system of rail regulation?
	The debate has inevitably concentrated on railway issues, but, as several hon. Members have pointed out, the debate is not only about railways but about transport safety. It is not in rail, sea or air transport but road transport that the vast majority of deaths and injuries occur. Hon. Member after hon. Member has pointed that out. Given that the Government have decided to include some measures relating to road traffic in the Bill—I refer to clause 103, which deals with road traffic penalties—could we not use this opportunity to address road safety issues? Could we not implement some of the long-awaited recommendations of the road traffic penalty review, which has been going round the circle of Departments for about five years?
	Here is an opportunity to do something about road safety. I hope that the Government will consider tabling amendments in Committee or on Report, especially given the emollient words of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). If the Government do not wish to table amendments themselves, may I suggest that it would be a good idea to indicate that they would give a fair wind to any Back-Bench Members' moves to that effect in Committee or on Report? I know that on one or two recent issues the Government have been happy to accept amendments on controversial issues from the Back Benches. Perhaps Back-Bench Members could assist the Government in their objectives on this matter, too. 6.34 pm

Anne McIntosh: I remind the House of my interests: my husband is an airline executive and I have personal interests in the RAC, Railtrack, Eurotunnel, British Airways, BAA and First Group. I recognise the importance to the United Kingdom economy of all the industries that the House is discussing this evening—especially rail, air and shipping—and I recognise in particular the contribution that the railway industry makes to North Yorkshire and my constituency of Vale of York.
	This is big and significant Bill. It already runs to 110 clauses and 7 schedules, with scope for many implementing regulations, which might not be open to full scrutiny by all hon. Members. The Conservative party welcomes much of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, much of it reflects Conservative party policy and draws on Acts of Parliament passed during the years of the last Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend also said, we find the Bill largely uncontroversial, although we shall seek to explore some issues of detail.
	As a number of hon. Members have stated during this excellent debate, it is interesting to note that there are no provisions relating to road safety. Will the Minister take note of our concern that safety should be treated equally across all modes of transport? In the words of my hon. Friend, a life is a life is a life. So have the Government considered introducing similar provisions to those contained in STATS 19 to cover railway accidents? Will the Minister respond positively to the plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for the creation of a road accident investigation branch similar to the arrangements for rail that we are discussing now?
	We welcome the setting up of an independent rail accident investigation branch, as first proposed by the Cullen inquiry and publicly backed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) shortly thereafter. We will carefully consider those provisions, and it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm this evening whether the RAIB will have the power to investigate accidents in the channel tunnel. The task of investigating any accident in the tunnel should be given to a suitable bi-national body.
	Will the Minister further clarify with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly the relationship between the reserved and devolved powers in the context of the Bill? The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), among others, referred to that issue.
	We recognise the relative safety and increasing safety status of our railways. To his credit, even the Deputy Prime Minister recognised that rail privatisation was not a contributory factor and said:
	"Safety was not better under the public sector in that industry."
	and
	"I have never accepted 'public good, private bad'".—[Official Report, 9 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 714-15.]
	The statistics bear out the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks. In October 1979, five people were killed and 52 injured at Invergowrie. In April 1979, seven people were killed and 67 hurt near Paisley. In June 1975, six people were killed and 38 hurt at Nuneaton. In February 1975, 43 people were killed and 74 hurt in the Moorgate underground disaster. In December 1973, 10 people were killed and 94 hurt in the Ealing accident, and in August 1973, five people were killed and 50 hurt in Glasgow. So the statistics dispel any myth that the numbers involved in rail accidents have increased since privatisation; on the contrary, the record has improved.
	The Secretary of State was reluctant to be drawn on part 2, under which the office of rail regulation will be created. If replacing the rail regulator with a board is such a good idea, why was it not introduced in the Transport Act 2000? I was privileged to be involved when the Transport Committee took evidence from the then rail regulator, who was very forthcoming about the untenability of his position when he might have been minded to act in a certain way on Railtrack's demise and when the Secretary of State told him that he was prepared to put emergency legislation through the House to prevent the rail regulator from acting in that way. The Conservative party wishes to strengthen the office and role of the rail regulator, not to weaken it. I ask the Minister what position the present rail regulator will hold on the board under the new provisions.
	On part 3, under which the British Transport police will be put on a statutory basis as a separate authority, I simply note that, as was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), it is not entirely clear what the status of that force will be. Surely, the Bill should clearly state that the British Transport police are separate from the Metropolitan police or any other local police force. We believe that the Bill could make that clearer.
	On part 4, which extends to shipping provisions on alcohol and drugs, I am curious about the exemptions put to the House this evening. We would prefer important items such as the power of the motor, the size of the ship and the location of the accident to be defined in the Bill rather than in regulations under clause 77(5)—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his intervention. That also prompts the question of how broadly the provisions in clause 76 relating to professional staff who are off duty will be applied. Surely the Government must have in mind a rota, with first on call for emergency duty, second on call for emergency duty and so on. In general, though, the provisions in part 4 are welcome in resolving situations such as that which arose in the Marchioness disaster.
	Many would say that the provisions in part 5 on alcohol and drugs in relation to aviation are not just welcome but long overdue. Will the Minister confirm that those provisions apply to airlines and crews of all nationalities using UK airports? We have observed, as have several hon. Members who have raised these concerns this evening, that the differentials in the prescribed limits as between pilots and flight navigators, engineers, radio telephony operators, flight attendants, air traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers are confusing. We believe that the provisions are unnecessarily complicated, and that uniform prescribed limits for all personnel would be much easier to apply. It would help our understanding of the Bill if the Minister would explain why different prescribed limits have been set.

John Spellar: That is a strange position for a Conservative: wanting to over-prescribe when there is no requirement, for safety reasons, for undertaking such measures. I should have thought that the most sensible approach would be to have different levels according to the level of criticality and the nature of the job, so that we are not over-prescribing or imposing over-onerous provisions on people at work.

Anne McIntosh: Those Members who are fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee will have plentiful opportunity to explore the matter in detail. I firmly believe that the rules are drafted in a misleading and confusing way, which will not lead to an easy application.

Lawrie Quinn: rose—

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an intelligent and positive contribution. The House benefits from his knowledge and experience of the industry, and he has made a strong bid to serve on the Committee. Regrettably, owing to the time available, I will not be able to accept an intervention from him at this stage. He raised a serious point relating to how we define accidents and incidents.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) also raised a genuine concern that minor incidents should not be blown up into major ones. The Opposition are concerned about the very sweeping nature of powers of investigation under clause 7, such as the right to enter land, including a dwelling house adjoining or abutting railway property. We shall call for the rail accident investigation branch to make an annual report to the House, which will be debated annually by the Transport Committee, to enable the House to monitor its work and the execution of its powers by its investigators.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and his contribution to transport policy over the years. He eloquently pointed out the potential conflict of responsibilities between the personnel of the rail accident investigation branch, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive, the police and the train operating companies. Will the Minister inform the House what will be the exact relationship between those bodies in the context of this Bill?
	We shall also consider closely provisions in clause 1, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South again referred—regrettably, he has not returned to the Chamber—relating to the convention on international carriage by rail, separating the functions of train operating from the management of track. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members that a former leader of the Labour party who is now a European Commissioner in Brussels first proposed such a separation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, there is a similar separation operating in aviation policy, where it works well and profitably.
	I also note that there is a huge scope in schedule 6 for an open-sesame approach to statutory instruments. The Conservative party regrets the influx of statutory instruments and regulations that are not exposed to full scrutiny either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We note the provisions in clause 105 for the transfer of powers relating to railways in London and the history behind those.
	We are delighted to give the Bill a fair wind on Second Reading. We support its main thrust, much of which is based on sound Conservative policies and on Acts of Parliament adopted under a Conservative Government, although we shall seek to explore certain aspects of it, including any omissions, in detail.

John Spellar: I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to a useful debate. Unlike Question Time, however, no inducements were offered to Ministers to accept various amendments. There was also the contribution by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), but I shall come to that later. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have been responsible for responding to other debates, and I find it slightly unusual to make a winding-up speech both in this atmosphere and at this hour.
	Before I respond briefly to the points made, I want to remind hon. Members of the Bill's significant aspects, many of which will be discussed in Committee. The Bill includes a wide and diverse set of measures ranging from the creation of a new and independent body to investigate accidents on the railways to giving British Transport police an accountability structure that we all recognise is appropriate for a modern police force. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and others for their contributions on the British Transport police and the excellent role they play. They are increasingly successful in the fight against crime on the transport system. The Bill also introduces alcohol limits for shipping and aviation.
	The creation of a body to investigate rail accidents was a main recommendation of Lord Cullen's report into the Ladbroke Grove accident. He recommended that it should be modelled on the existing investigation branches for air and marine accidents. He also recommended that its sole task should be to determine the cause of accidents. The Bill creates just such a body. Unlike existing rail accident investigators, the RAIB will be independent of the rail industry and those responsible for regulating the railways. It will carry out its investigations free of any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived. That is an important point in light of comments made in the debate. The reports will be published promptly, which deals with one of the significant criticisms of the current regime, and victims of accidents will be kept informed of the progress of investigations, a problem that has been mentioned in the past year in particular.
	The Bill will also create a police authority for the British Transport police and a police force for Britain's railways. That will be modelled closely on existing authorities for local constabularies.

Andrew MacKinlay: Existing legislation provides for the British Transport police to police ports. The option is not being exercised now, but it has been in the past. Some small ports, including Tilbury, Felixstowe, Tees and Hartlepool, and all those in Scotland are not policed by dedicated police forces. Will the Minister keep that option open so that the Government can put the police back into many of our sea ports, perhaps for security reasons?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that many of the major ports have dedicated police forces. Discussions take place with county constabularies on the policing of a number of minor ports. As I have said to him privately, I take his point on board. We will consider it further and get back to him. I realise that he represents the port of Tilbury and is in touch with such issues.
	The British Transport police will gain a wholly statutory jurisdiction, which they currently lack. The other railway measures include the restructuring of the Office of the Rail Regulator. We propose that it now be headed by a board rather than a single regulator. I point out that that is in line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force, and I hardly think that it can be argued that it in any way undermines the position of the regulator, precisely because it is being applied throughout the regulatory regime. As far as I am aware, that has general approval from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was unfortunate that the measure was taken out of that context in one or two contributions today.
	The Bill allows the UK to ratify the new text of an international rail treaty. It provides for the introduction of a levy to fund the Health and Safety Executive's rail-related activities and to replace the overly bureaucratic system of charging by the hour. The Bill will also amend certain sections of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 regarding the London underground. It will ensure that the Act operates as intended, and I certainly assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that it does not provide a position in which its implementation can be postponed indefinitely. The Bill deals with circumstances that probably could not have been envisaged when the GLA Act was passed. There is a hiatus because there is still a legal appeal by Transport for London, which could undermine the purposes of the Act. The Bill is intended to remedy that.
	The Bill seeks to improve safety at sea and in the air. We propose the introduction of alcohol limits for mariners and certain aviation personnel whose role is critical in safety. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did not clarify why she believes that where certain groups require stricter limits, those should apply to everyone else even though such limits are not required by the nature of their job.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend is probably aware that I was trying to intervene on the hon. Lady on that very point. Will he confirm that at the moment the railway industry designates safety-related posts, and the existing legislation for that industry works very well? Indeed, if the hon. Lady seeks a model to demonstrate that it works well, she should look no further than the railway industry.

John Spellar: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that the hon. Lady took those points on board. She may reflect on her position before the Bill goes into Committee.
	As hon. Members will know, the introduction of legislation to control alcohol misuse by mariners was one of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Clark's inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. A new offence will apply to all on-duty professional mariners who exceed the set limit and to any off-duty mariners who would play a role in evacuating passengers in an emergency. The limit will also affect some, but not all, recreational mariners.
	In reply to the hon. Lady, the reason for dealing with some of those matters by regulation is to allow us to have much fuller discussion and consultation with those who will be affected. Frankly, if we do not get the provisions right, it will also allow us to amend them more easily than we could through primary legislation. There is a useful debate to be had about the appropriate limits. We have to balance the general convenience of the public with the need to maintain safety. I am sure that the hon. Lady will come to appreciate our position during the Committee proceedings.
	On the aviation side, the limits will apply to aircrew, air traffic controllers and licensed aircraft engineers. The police will be responsible for enforcing the limits, and they will be able to test mariners and safety-critical aviation personnel for alcohol where they have reasonable suspicion that an offence may have been committed.
	I turn now to the points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and a number of other hon. Members raised the question of road safety, which is very important. However, it would have been helpful if they had prefaced their remarks by pointing out that our roads, along with those in Sweden, are the safest in Europe. Under Governments of both parties—I say this with a former Transport Minister on the Opposition Benches—there has been a steady decline in road deaths. Indeed, in respect of the carnage on the French roads and the measures that need to be taken in France, only a couple of months ago the President of France held up the British record as an example.
	Steady progress has been made in a number of areas, and we are looking at where the next moves can be made to improve road safety. For example, we have the best record in Europe for car deaths, but our record on child pedestrian accidents—although it is improving, and although we have gone from the bottom to the middle of the European league—still has further to go. There is a very heavy geographic concentration of such accidents, particularly in the north-west. That is precisely why, in the autumn of last year, I announced some £17 million to £18 million to fund not just a study, but the undertaking of various projects in those boroughs, in order to ascertain the reason for, and the remedies for, the much higher incidence of child pedestrian accidents in those areas.
	In the same way, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has launched a consultation on the use of mobile phones. Again, we will introduce secondary legislation to deal with what is widely perceived as a problem and as a threat to safety on the roads. That is the way to deal with that problem.
	On the ownership and driving of vehicles, hon. Members will have encountered advertisements for the V5 registration form for cars, which will prevent people from obtaining licences so easily, particularly for stolen vehicles. Frankly, if a car auction is allowing someone to drive off a site without insurance, by definition, we should be looking at such behaviour. However, in general car, auction companies are becoming increasingly co-operative in dealing with illegal vehicles such as untaxed and uninsured vehicles. Either the Under-Secretary or I will write to the hon. Member for Bath with some of the relevant details. I hope, too, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will get the message out in their constituencies, and get their local authorities, police forces and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to work together to deal with the problem of rogue vehicles and rogue drivers, and steadily to eliminate many of them from the roads. The hon. Member for Bath also mentioned the Office of the Rail Regulator's consultation on safety. In fact, it is almost finished, and we hope that it will come to a conclusion in the not too distant future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—he is chairing a Committee elsewhere in this building, so he is unable to be here for the wind-ups—raised the question of accidents and incidents, which we shall need to discuss in Committee. However, I counsel a degree of caution in terms of the danger of over-emphasising this issue. We could arrive at the position that was reached in the nuclear industry, whereby a previous Secretary of State with responsibility for energy said that he wanted every incident, however small, to be reported to him. That led to an utterly nonsensical situation. We therefore need to look at levels of significance and prioritisation, and to keep a sensible difference in definition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also asked about the reason for the delay in the implementation in respect of the mark 1 trains. I am not sure whether he was present for Transport questions, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the reason for this problem very clear. Between them, the train operator and Railtrack totally failed to undertake the necessary work, or to realise that work was necessary to provide the electricity supply that would enable new trains to be brought on stream.
	The Government are committed to delivering a transport system that is modern, reliable and safe, and central to quality of life. This Bill will be an important part of that change. It will improve safety and improve public confidence in the safety of the transport industry, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill—
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11th March.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any other further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Caplin.]
	The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 95.

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department in the name of Mr. John McWilliam may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act,
	(b) expenditure incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation in connection with the performance of its functions, and
	(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(a) the imposition of railway safety levy on persons who provide railway services, and
	(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 21st January 2003, the programme order of 7th January 2003 in relation to the Local Government Bill shall be amended as follows—
	In paragraph 2 of the order (proceedings in standing committee to be brought to conclusion no later than 6th February), for '6th' there is substituted '13th'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents)—
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to Police Grant Report (England and Wales) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, and
	(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance (England) not later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to Police Grant Report (England and Wales); and the proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption, and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Heppell.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

Lord Chancellor's Department

John McWilliam: I beg to move,
	That Mr A. J. Beith, Peter Bottomley, Mr James Clappison, Ross Cranston, Mrs Ann Cryer, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Hilton Dawson, Mr Mark Field, Mr Clive Soley, Keith Vaz and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	Let me make it plain at the outset that this is not a question of whether the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is not an active, able and respected Member of the House or of the respective merits of her and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is about maintaining the ratio in the selection of Committees in this House.
	The Committee has 11 members, which gives us a ratio of seven Labour members, three Conservative and one other. The one other member is, of course, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, a Liberal Democrat. That reflects the composition of the House, which the Committee of Selection calculates to three decimal places.
	If the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is again suggesting that we move away from a system that selects Committees that reflect the composition of the House, I suggest it is wrong to do that on a Committee that does not cover the whole United Kingdom. I also suggest to him that it is not a good idea anyway. What is more, I suggest to him that getting other parties involved in the selection of members of their own parties to allocated places on Select Committees could lead to all sorts of difficulties.

Alex Salmond: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is now on the Front Bench? He pointed out that, on Select Committees,
	"the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented by two".—[Official Report, 21 November 2003; Vol. 394, c. 883.]
	If that is the view of the Minister, why is it not the view of the convener of the Committee of Selection?

John McWilliam: That may be the view of the Minister on the basis of his sums, but my sums are probably rather more accurate.
	Including the Select Committee that we are dealing with, which changes the ratio, there are 464 places on Select Committees. If there were a Committee with 464 places, it would break down as follows: Labour 292; Conservative 116; Lib Dem 38; UUP four; DUP four; SNP four; Plaid Cymru three; SDLP two; and independents one. However, we are dealing with a Committee of 11.
	To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside, because of the situation in respect of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and the need to ensure adequate representation from Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party is over-represented in its membership of Select Committees. The amendment that he has tabled would exacerbate that enormously, as one can see when looking at the figures that I have just given.

Alex Salmond: If the amendment would exacerbate the over-representation of Ulster Unionist Members, why would not the motion exacerbate the over-representation of the Liberal Democrats?

John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Labour party as well as the Liberal Democrat party is over-represented. However, that happens because the size of the Committees is rounded. [Hon. Members: "That's all right then."] Is it all right? I remember intervening on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in the debate on the Committee of Selection to ask who would be cut in half. We are considering decimal points and parties that are represented by fewer than 10 Members. The Labour party and the Conservative party are represented in hundreds; the Liberal Democrats are represented in multiples of 10—there are nearly 40 Liberal Democrat Members.

Greg Knight: Who represents the interests of the minority parties on the Committee of Selection? Liberal Democrat Members always used to try to represent not only their party but the other minority parties. There is a problem only because it appears that the Liberal Democrats have failed to represent the other minority parties. [Interruption.] Let me finish. That is also true of other members of the Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a rather long intervention.

John McWilliam: As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I act as independently as possible. I have a reputation for that. The minority parties made representations to me some time ago. They were dissatisfied with the Liberal Democrats and they made an agreement with the Government that the Government would represent them. We are dealing with that now. Nominations were tackled in the usual way.
	Nominations are routinely made to the parliamentary Labour party and approved before they are put to the Committee of Selection. The other parties have their systems for nominating members. The minority parties operate through the Government Whips Office, and that happened in the case that we are considering.

Andrew MacKinlay: My hon. Friend rattled off a load of numbers. I was waiting for the next part of his contribution because he told us the allocation but not the entitlement on a strict pro rata basis. He said, for example, Labour—292; Conservatives—160. To how many members is each party entitled? I support the underdog. We should discriminate in favour of the smaller, minority interests in such a massive Parliament.

John McWilliam: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. The House agreed last night that the Committee would have 11 members. I explained earlier that the ratio is seven Labour, three Conservative and one Liberal Democrat—

Alex Salmond: One other.

John McWilliam: One other. However, on a strict ratio that should be a Liberal Democrat. We try to stick to that fairly.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Committee deals with a Department that does not operate in all parts of the United Kingdom. I was waiting for him to explain why that observation was relevant to the debate. Will he now do that?

John McWilliam: Yes. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom that the Department does not represent. I therefore subtract from the figures that I gave earlier the Scottish National party entitlement of four and conduct some redistribution. However, that would not result in another party receiving a different number.

Alex Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that point, he will have to subtract all the Labour Members from Scotland and redo his calculations. The amendment proposes the nomination of a member of the Committee from Northern Ireland, so why is the point relevant?

John McWilliam: Even if I subtracted the Labour Members, it would not change the ratio by anything that would allow an extra member from Northern Ireland. In fact, as I have said, the Ulster Unionists are over-represented in their total membership of Select Committees.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer. It has been done fairly; it has been done clearly; and it has been done openly.

David Burnside: rose—

John McWilliam: I have been overly generous in giving way, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is from Northern Ireland.

David Burnside: I read Quintin Hogg's "The Dilemma of Democracy" when I was at school. He warned of the threat of an elective dictatorship. In the short time since I entered the House, it has surely been right to have over-representation of minority parties, whether Unionist, nationalist or whatever, to try to bring the Executive to account. Since the Committee legally covers the Union of England and Northern Ireland—there might not be much left in the future—it would be—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his intervention to a close?

David Burnside: My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should be on the Committee.

John McWilliam: I caution the hon. Gentleman about using his source as an authority on the Committee that we are selecting tonight, since that source was the reason why it is only now, after 20-odd years, that we are appointing a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. The hon. Gentleman's source, the former Lord Hailsham, insisted that if the new Select Committee system was to go forward in 1979 he would vote for it only as long as it did not cover his Department. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's source is tainted.
	We have gone on long enough. It is obvious that we want to get on with this. We have waited 20-odd years for a Committee that should have been set up 20-odd years ago.
	I commend the nominations to the House.

Pete Wishart: I beg to move, To leave out "Mr. A. J. Beith" and insert "Lady Hermon".
	I begin by assuring the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that there is nothing personal in this. Our amendment is purely political, moved in order to address the continuing exclusion of the minority parties from the vast majority of Select Committees.
	We particularly enjoy these debates. They are always quite convivial and are always quite entertaining. I particularly liked the bravura performance of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) last night on the establishment of the Committee under consideration. Such debates also allow us to draw attention to the wonderful world of Select Committees.
	We have had a number of debates about Select Committees in the past year, most of them very much to the dissatisfaction of the minority parties. I particularly recall the debate on modernisation, in which we tabled what we thought was a very reasonable and sensible amendment, suggesting that one place should be set aside for the minority parties in each departmental Select Committee. We thought that that was reasonable and fair. We argued for the amendment and divided the House on it. We were overwhelmingly and comprehensively drubbed in the vote. We admit that and we expected it. We accepted that that was the will of the House.
	However, we returned with an even more reasonable suggestion: that each of the minority parties should have one representative on one departmental Select Committee over and above their nation or region of interest. I do not think that it is possible to be fairer and more reasonable than that. I am disappointed that we have made no progress on what is not an outrageous demand.
	What also disappoints us is that it seems to be only the Select Committees that deny this access. We are able to participate in all the other institutions of the House. We can participate in debates if we are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. We are involved in question sessions and we participate in questions on statements. But for some reason, Select Committees are impervious to change. They remain out of bounds to the minority parties. Surely it is time for that to change.
	We have tried patiently and consistently to put the case that Select Committees must reflect not just the crude arithmetic that seems to be bandied back and forth in these debates, but the political reality of a multi-party House in a multi-party United Kingdom.

John McWilliam: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he reflect on the situation before 1997? The Government had a majority of one on Select Committees because of the ratios. We are trying to deal with a situation in which Governments may not always have such a huge majority. Therefore, under his proposal and in a situation such as that before 1997, the Government of the day would not have a majority at all. That would cause a problem for the Select Committees.

Pete Wishart: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention incredible. Surely, in these circumstances—the Government have a massive majority—we have an excellent opportunity to involve the minority parties in the functions of the House and there is nothing to be lost in allowing us to participate in Select Committees. Sometimes, we have to remind many Members that there are more than just the three main establishment parties in the United Kingdom, and they would find that out if they ventured across the borders of Scotland or Wales.

Jim Sheridan: For the sake of clarity, when the hon. Gentleman talks of minority parties, is he including another minority party—Sinn Fein?

Pete Wishart: I serve as a joint Whip for two minority parties when we deal with the Government, but we are talking about minority parties including the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists. That does not include Sinn Fein.

Alex Salmond: And the Social Democratic and Labour party.

Pete Wishart: Yes, and the SDLP.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that minorities should be over-represented. That is entirely right and it is how we achieve equality in such situations. We must over-represent the minority parties in the House to reflect the political reality of the UK. On this Bench sit Members from the SNP, which is the second party in Scotland. Our party is the principal Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and it may soon form the Government of Scotland.
	Here also sit Members from Plaid Cymru, which is the second party in Wales and the principal Opposition in Wales. It will soon form the Administration in Cardiff. Behind us we have the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) and behind Labour Members sit Members from the SDLP. When Stormont sits, members of those two parties effectively form the Government of Northern Ireland. Surely departmental Select Committees should reflect and acknowledge that reality.
	The proposal to establish the Committee was made, but when the nominations for membership were made—lo and behold and surprise, surprise—there was nobody there from the minority parties. That is what we expected, and there was as much chance of a minority party being represented on the Committee as there is of me being made Lord Chancellor, heaven forbid.

Alex Salmond: Good idea.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion—who knows?

John McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that he cannot be Lord Chancellor because he is a Scot. The Lord Chancellor is a Scot.

Pete Wishart: I am not in the business of ruling myself out of any particular task, but perhaps Lord Chancellor may be a job beyond me.
	Our amendment would replace the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The House must agree that one could not find a more appropriate and suitable candidate for the Committee than the hon. Lady. A more gentle and fragrant alternative to the gruff and bellicose voices of Ulster, which we usually hear from hon. Members who sit behind us, could not be found. Indeed, she has already impressed the House with her polite yet tenacious approach in debate and in Committee. She is also something of an authority in legal matters, which one would think an advantage in the Committee.
	Before taking a seat in the House, the hon. Lady spent 10 years as a lecturer in European, international and constitutional law at Queen's university. Surely such specialised knowledge and experience would increase the influence and status of Select Committees, inside and outside the House. She is an asset who should be employed in the Committee. Indeed, she should have been one of the first ports of call when the Committee was being established.
	The hon. Lady is a suitable choice, and we would hope that she becomes Chairman of the Committee. It is no great surprise or secret that that chairmanship is intended for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have spent too long in the usual channels and the Whips Office not to know that that is the case, but we are offering the House a choice—a proper election, not an election made behind closed doors in the Whips Offices where there is the whiff of smoke and a carve up between the Whips. We want the decision to be taken here on the Floor of the House. We are extending the franchise to Members here, who have a choice as to who will be Chairman of the new Committee—the hon. Member for North Down or the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that they exercise that choice and support our recommendation that the Chairman should be the hon. Member for North Down.
	If the amendment is successful, if we manage to get the hon. Member for North Down on to the Committee and into the Chair—I realise that that is a lot of "ifs"—the minority parties would have their first-ever member on the Liaison Committee. Of the 34 members of that Committee, the Liberal Democrats, with 47 Members of Parliament, already have two—

Paul Tyler: We have 53 Members of Parliament.

Pete Wishart: I take that correction. With the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, there would be three Liberal-Democrat members of the Committee. The minority parties have 23 members, but no place on the Committee. The House should put that iniquity right and make a strike for fair representation by minority parties on the Liaison Committee.
	We watched the Liaison Committee in action last week, when members had the opportunity—

John McWilliam: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The chairmanship of the Select Committee is a matter for the Select Committee, when it is formed. Neither I nor the Committee of Selection know who the Committee might select.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes that contention genuinely, but it is not much of a trade secret that the most likely Chair of the new Select Committee is the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Alex Salmond: The solution is obvious. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is in his place. All he has to do is intervene and say that he has no ambition to chair the Select Committee. The matter could be cleared up here and now.

Pete Wishart: I thank my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed declines to give that categorical pledge. That does not surprise me.
	The minority parties are increasingly being excluded from the Committees of the House. I gave the example of the lack of access to Select Committees, and the same applies to the Liaison Committee. We are also worried about the Joint Committees of both Houses. We believe that they will be used as a form of pre-legislative scrutiny. We are effectively debarred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was on track when he spoke about replacing one hon. Member with another. That is the proposal to which he should be speaking.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that the minority parties seem to be excluded from the Committee structure of the House, and from the Joint Committees of both Houses. If we are excluded from pre-legislative scrutiny, that would be unacceptable. I hope that the House does not go down that road. The minority parties have to be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. We need an assurance that we will not be left out.
	The Leader of the House has given us warm words over the past few months. We have taken them at face value. He is aware of our concerns, and is trying to find solutions. In the previous two debates on this matter, I have said that I believe that the Leader of the House and the Government have been trying to find a solution. They have been constructive and we appreciate the assistance and support that they have given the new arrangements for the minority parties. All aspects, other than access to Select Committees, have worked well.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lot of talk about modernisation, and that the proposal would be a good move in that respect?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that we are not talking about modernisation of the House. He must confine his remarks to the amendment.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I conclude by acknowledging the assistance of Conservative Members, who believe that we have a reasonable case. I hope that we will be able to enlist their support for the amendment.
	It is time to make progress. We want some results. We could start with hon. Members supporting the amendment.We are not asking for much—one place in a non-regional departmental Select Committee for each of the minority parties in the House. It is a reasonable request. I hope that the House supports it, and the amendment before it this evening.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that the amendment applies to a non-regional departmental Committee. That is so, but the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are all guilty of not seeking representation in Northern Ireland, with the result that people from that region cannot join our parties. All hon. Members in those parties should reflect on the fact that we contribute to the disenfranchisement of people in Northern Ireland in that respect.
	Is it really acceptable that such a major Committee, dealing with the portfolio of the Lord Chancellor's Department, should have no representation from Northern Ireland? Our Lord Chancellor also undertakes functions that historically belonged to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He is currently in charge of the courts, the appointment of the judiciary and all other constitutional issues relating to Northern Ireland. That is another powerful argument for accepting the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
	I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will not take my remarks personally as I hold him in the highest regard.

Ronnie Campbell: But my hon. Friend will not vote for the right hon. Gentleman.

Andrew MacKinlay: No, I shall not vote for the right hon. Gentleman because, to his credit, he is now a member of one of the principal political parties. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat party has reached critical mass and is probably the most effective Opposition party in this place. In the past, the right hon. Gentleman could have referred to himself as a member of a minor party, and I am sure that he did so. He is not challenging me because it is on the record that he referred to himself in that way. However, he is no longer a member of a minor party but of a substantial party, which could form the principal Opposition after the next general election.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats are a major party in Britain, so would it make more sense if a Member from a minority party swapped with someone from the Government or the Tory Benches, rather than with the only Liberal Democrat Member proposed as a member of the Committee?

Andrew MacKinlay: That is a good point and all the big parties should reflect on it. One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that there has always been a place for the minor voice—[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but the point is important. The office that you hold, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is charged with the protection of minorities. In a legislature of 659 Members, there is a powerful case for discriminating in favour of the smaller interest, whether geographical or political. That is one of the strengths of a democracy.
	We go around the world telling new legislatures to build in safeguards and ratchets for minor interests. We should do the same in this case. I do not want to labour the point, but there is a powerful regional case to be made for Northern Ireland representation on the Committee.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument that a representative from a Northern Ireland party should be a member of the Committee. Some of those parties hold this House in high esteem and want it to be retained, but is my hon. Friend arguing that Members from parties that do not value this place and want to undermine it should also be able to serve on the Committee?

Andrew MacKinlay: I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point. Our mandate does not come from the constitution but from the folk who sent us here, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—the Sinn Fein Member—does not contribute to our debates. The good folk of his constituency sent him here. That is their right—they gave the mandate and they can take it away. As regards my hon. Friend's intervention, there are Members with whom I fundamentally disagree but they have been sent to this place with a mandate and they have a right to be heard
	The overriding consideration is the regional dimension, so we have to recognise that we cannot have more members from the mainstream parties. It would be disingenuous of the three main political parties if we were not prepared in this case to support the nomination of the hon. Member for North Down.

Peter Bottomley: I shall not pay a lot of tributes to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When I saw the amendment, I determined that I should vote for him rather than the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because, as I am a reasonably senior Member of the House, I might have been at risk of becoming Chairman and it is not one of my ambitions to become a member of the Liaison Committee.
	The Government, or the Labour party, should have learned lessons from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in the last Parliament. When there was a vacancy, the Conservatives proposed that Martin Bell join the Committee. He had direct experience, was a one-term Member of Parliament and served with some distinction. It is also worth recognising that Select Committees seldom have contested votes that matter. There may be times when they want to make a point, and there may have been times in the previous Parliament when there were serious contested votes, but at present that is not likely to happen, and if it did, it is not likely to matter a great deal.
	So the best advice that I would offer the House is to accept the motion unamended, but see whether the Labour party will consider following the precedent set by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament and whether it might put right a point that has been well made, which is that it would be suitable for Northern Ireland to have a member of the Committee. Perhaps we can meet the point without doing the slightly offensive thing of challenging the Committee of Selection, which does a pretty good job honourably and pretty effectively.

Alex Salmond: It would be a matter of challenging the Committee of Selection if the people who were challenging it were represented on it, but, given that they are not, it is legitimate to bring the matter to the Chamber for general debate.
	May I summarise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) some of the key arguments? We know from the debate that this is not about arithmetic. If it were, a Liberal member of the Committee would not be proposed, because as we know from the remarks made from the Government Front Bench, in mathematical terms the Liberal party is over-represented on Select Committees.
	The reason the figures given by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection do not stack up with regard to minority parties was stated by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). The three major Westminster parties do not stand in Northern Ireland, so the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee by definition has to include all the representatives of Northern Ireland parties, and that skews the arithmetic for the Select Committees overall. In the rest of the Committees, the minority parties are well under-represented, as the Liberals are over-represented.
	This should not be a matter of mathematical representation. When the late Donald Dewar and I were engaged in discussions about setting up the Committee system of the Scots Parliament, it was clear in mathematical terms that the three independent Members—the Green Member, the Scottish Socialist Member and Dennis Canavan—were not entitled to representation on the Scottish parliamentary Committees. Yet we agreed that they should have that representation, regardless of the mathematics, because we felt that any minority voice should have all the opportunities to be heard that the Parliament offered. There was not even an argument or a debate about it. It was the right thing to do. It was not a matter of arithmetic. The right thing for this House to do is make sure that minority parties are properly represented through all the mechanisms of the House.
	The request articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside is not unreasonable. He asks for three additional Select Committee places across all the Select Committees. That would allow each minority party to have one place on a departmental Select Committee over and above the place that they must have on the territorial Committee. That is a de minimis demand. It is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position.

Alan Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about additional places for minority parties, but surely his argument should have been made last night when we set up the Committee with 11 members. Surely he should have moved an amendment then to add an extra person, rather than supporting the amendment tonight, which would remove all Liberal Democrat representation from the Committee.

Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside is perfectly capable of making our argument, but the over-representation of the hon. Gentleman's party is caused by the Liberal Democrat insistence on being represented on every Committee, regardless of whether the arithmetic justifies it. I agree that a way round the problem is to expand the size of three Select Committees. Several Select Committees already have expanded to allow the minority parties to be represented, but in all fairness, when the Liberals were charged with the responsibility of representing the minority parties, they did not fulfil it ethically. Their idea of representing the minority parties was to replace a minority party place on a departmental Select Committee with a place on the towering heights of the Catering Committee and other such Committees of the House, which are interesting and in which we enthusiastically participate, but are not quite the same as challenging Secretaries of State and Departments.
	I had the enormous pleasure of doing a television piece for an event that is going on elsewhere this evening—the Channel 4 political awards—with the very hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She is one of the finalists for the Opposition politician of the year award. She has extensive legal experience, so it would be reasonable to accept the amendment.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) knows full well that I have the highest regard for his abilities. I have supported him for other offices in the House, but I am slightly surprised that someone of his calibre has not seen this argument coming and insisted that his party should do its bit in being fair to the minority parties.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) says that the Liberal party has approached critical mass. Things usually approach critical mass when they are about to explode. None the less, even if the Liberal party has approached critical mass, its members should remember when they were in a minority party and therefore be fair to the minorities parties, which do not have that number of hon. Members.
	My final argument is one of unity. Where else on the face of this planet would an amendment be supported by the Scottish National party, by the Ulster Unionists, who are diverse in their political views, and even by the Democratic Unionists, who are extremely diverse and, even more so, by the Social Democratic and Labour party? That is unheard of. The amendment has unified the minority parties, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside represents the minorities parties. They have never been prepared to argue their case together before, but they have come together on questions of fairness, parity and having access to the channels of the House. The House would be less than gracious if, either in the vote later this evening or, alternatively, through the Minister's means, it were not prepared to concede to those perfectly reasonable demands.

David Burnside: I wish to make a parochial comment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am not experienced in the procedures of the House or the Select Committee system, so I do not want to walk over ground about which I feel unsure.
	Criminal justice has undergone a major review in Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement, as has policing. There are many concerns, some of which are not shared across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, and different points of view. I believe that Select Committee membership lasts for the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is personally appropriate that an Ulster Member should sit on the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down is experienced in legal matters, so it would be very appropriate in this case that she serve on that Committee at a time when many more changes have been proposed to criminal justice in Northern Ireland and there is the debate about our constitutional position in relation to the Belfast agreement and the Lord Chancellor's reserved powers in our legal system.

David Heath: I simply want to place on record the fact that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is playing a very important role on the Standing Committee that is considering the Criminal Justice Bill, as I know from my experience of serving on that Committee. She is a great help to the whole Committee. I would strongly support her membership of the Select Committee if that were not in replacement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who would be an even better advertisement for that Committee.

David Burnside: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that praise for my hon. Friend the Member for North Down.
	The possible transfer—I think it highly unlikely—of justice and policing to a re-established Stormont Executive will also occupy the House during the lifetime of this Parliament. That strengthens my opinion that this is an appropriate one-off appointment for my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. That is all I wish to say on this subject. 7.54 pm

Paul Tyler: May I apologise in advance to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House? I am wearing a loud tie today in celebration of cancer research week, as that is what Members have been requested to do. When I rose to speak in Westminster Hall this afternoon while wearing the very same tie, the sound system promptly collapsed and the sitting had to be suspended for quite a long period. I hope that my tie will not have the same effect this evening.
	The point made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) is appropriate and I hope that, in the long term, the Government will take it into account. I want to make it absolutely clear that my colleagues and I are sympathetic to the point of view of the minority parties because we have been in their position. For many years, we had precisely the same problem that they have now encountered. I very much regret that they decided that we were not their best advocates: they now look to the Government, as has been made clear this evening, to act on their behalf. If the case is made for an additional representative from the minority parties for this or any other Committee, they should look to the Government to find a place for them, and to substitute one of their Members for a Labour Member. That is not a matter for us.
	What I want to make clear is that there was no discrimination—to take up the word used by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—in favour of minority parties in the past. When I was my party's Chief Whip and previously, there was no such discrimination. We did not look for it—we would have loved it if it had happened—but we understood the arithmetic of this place. As the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), has made only too clear, the arithmetical equation is difficult. Often, for a comparatively small Committee, it is a very difficult task to try to find representation from all parts of the House, geographically as well as by party.
	It is disappointing—I put it no stronger than that—that the minority parties have chosen this occasion to seek to remove a Member from a Committee and to put on one of their own. There have been plenty of opportunities previously that would have been more appropriate and that covered all parts of the United Kingdom represented by those parties. I accept their point, however, that it has been difficult in the past for them to obtain seats on several Committees.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) referred to two examples. I know that positions have recently been sought on various Bill Committees: for example, on that considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. A place was requested and a Member was nominated to take up a position on that Committee, but he did not attend.

Elfyn Llwyd: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his point further, a Government Whip put forward my name without my knowledge or permission, and I did not take part in that Committee. I removed my name via the Chief Whip's Office, so there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman says.

Paul Tyler: I find that very interesting, as it underlines my point. If the negotiations between the minority parties and the Government Whips are not working, that is not a matter for my party, and we should not be penalised. On that occasion, we were denied a second place on the Committee because those parties did not take it up, which was very regrettable. They also insisted on a place on the Local Government Bill Committee, but they could not find a Member to take it up, although that Committee involved important issues affecting Wales. It is therefore regrettable that they should attempt to take out their grievance on my colleagues.

Pete Wishart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not insinuating that we are not doing the work on Standing Committees. That is not the case. We are prepared to do that work—we have served on several Standing Committees previously. We have no problem with places offered on Standing Committees. The issue is Select Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are again starting to stray way beyond the terms of reference for this evening.

Paul Tyler: My point is that the minority parties cannot cherry pick. If they wish to take a full part in the business of the House they cannot simply opt for the most attractive Committees. If they were so keen to increase their representation, they should have sought to amend the size of this Committee. They had an opportunity to do that last night, when there was an open-ended debate. I regret very much that the minority parties decided to use this opportunity, and that they attempted to remove my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Committee. With 53 Members of the House, we are clearly entitled to one Member on this Committee. If the minority parties wanted an additional Member, they should have negotiated directly with the Government or they should have sought to increase the size of the Committee. My colleagues and I will support the motion tonight.

Greg Knight: I pay tribute to the work of all members of the Committee of Selection. It is testimony to how well they do their task that we rarely debate their recommendations.
	There are two issues to consider. The first is the principle of whether the Select Committee should be established. We decided that yesterday. The second is the narrow issue of its membership. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) is right: it would usually seem offensive to challenge the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, but in this case something has gone wrong and the House is being asked to make an important decision on something that has caused controversy. We are entitled to ask why the minority parties are unhappy with the recommendation and have felt moved to table an amendment.
	When my party was in government, the member of the Committee of Selection who represented the largest minority party spoke up for the interests not only of his or her party but for the interests of all other minority parties. For many years, that job was discharged very well indeed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). During my time in the Government Whips Office, the only dispute that I recall was over the appointment of a Conservative member to a Committee and the omission of another Conservative member. I cannot recollect any time when the minority parties had a gripe, and the system worked well.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) took on the task in 2001. He has subsequently relinquished it, and it does not matter whether that was at his own request or because others were dissatisfied with his decision making. The transfer of responsibility, supposedly to a Labour member of the Committee of Selection, has not worked satisfactorily. The Committee is composed of nine members—six Labour members, two Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat. As the Government are taking on the role of looking after the minority parties, there is perhaps a case for giving the minority parties a place on the Committee of Selection so that they can have a voice. It has never been the case that the members of the Committee have represented all shades of opinion, but they have always tried to reflect accurately the views in the House. That is clearly not happening.
	The impression that has been given, certainly in recent months, is that the Liberal Democrats are getting more than their fair share of plum places, such as the nomination to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Dept. We all know about the usual channels agreement, and I understand that this Committee chairmanship will go to the Liberals if the motion is approved unamended. They have two places on the important Modernisation Committee. Minority party Members do not have a voice and, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said, they do not have a place on the Liaison Committee either. One cannot justify that merely by reference to the arithmetics. The operation of the House and its Committees has always been based on an element of compromise. There is a perceived injustice here, and I hope that the Government and the Committee of Selection will be prepared to reflect on that well beyond the conclusion of this debate.
	I have some sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Member for North Tayside. We should not view the selection as a beauty contest between Berwick-upon-Tweed and North Down. Both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) have qualities that would be of use and benefit on the Select Committee, but there is a feeling that we have been here before and that the voice of the minority parties has not been heard when matters of selection have been discussed. For that reason, although the amendment is not ideal, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it in the Division Lobby.

Ben Bradshaw: I begin by associating myself fully with the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who paid tribute to the work of the Committee of Selection. As he pointed out, it does its difficult job so well that we rarely have to have debates such as this.
	The Chairman of the Committee has assured the House that it seeks to ensure party balance and fair representation for the smaller parties, but we are being asked to debate, and possibly vote on, an amendment to the Committee's motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that would replace the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), from the Liberal Democrats, with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), from the Ulster Unionist party. There is not a single Member of the House who does not think that the hon. Lady would make an admirable member of the Committee. Indeed, I think I speak for all hon. Members when I say that, in her short time here, she has won our affection and admiration. However, I urge the House to follow the judgment of the Committee of Selection and to reject the amendment, and I shall explain why.
	First, let me address the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the Government's role in defending the interests of minority parties. I do not want to intrude too deeply on private grief between the Liberal Democrats and the other smaller parties, but we have been here before. Last time we debated these matters, the point was made clearly by the smaller parties—here I do not include the Liberal Democrats—that since the Government had taken on responsibility for their interests, the arrangement had been working much better. I see that the hon. Member for North Tayside is nodding in agreement. That slightly contradicts the point made by the official Opposition spokesman that the Government are not doing the job properly or, at least, they are doing it no better than the Liberal Democrats. I shall go on to address that case in a moment.
	The Government are aware that the smaller parties are concerned about their representation, and no one has done more to try to press their case than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who this evening is at the same event as the hon. Member for North Down, and, I hope, also receiving an award.

Alex Salmond: I had something to say about the right hon. Gentleman on the same programme, which no doubt is being shown as we speak.
	The Minister says that things have improved, and that has been conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). However, there is an exception in the case of Select Committees and, in particular, the Liaison Committee, where there has been no progress or improvement. If there can be improvement in one direction, cannot the Minister find it in his heart to improve the situation with Select Committees as well?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say.
	As I was saying, the Leader of the House has acknowledged that the smaller parties, particularly the Scottish National party, have a grievance in this matter. We have said that the Committee of Selection is aware of those concerns and that it should make every attempt to be as fair as possible when proposing Committee membership.
	Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who asked in vain for the figures on Committee membership. I have given these to the House before, but it may be helpful to the House if I repeat them. If there were strict proportionality in dishing out membership, the Labour party would have 292 places; we currently have 295. The Conservatives would have 116, and they have 115. The Liberal Democrats would have 38, and they have 40, while the Ulster Unionist party would have four, but it has five, so both those parties are slightly over-represented. The Democratic Unionist party would have four seats, but currently it has only three. The Scottish Nationalist party would have four, but it has two. The Welsh nationalists would have three, and they have three. The SDLP would have two, and it has two.
	My hon. Friend said that we should fight hardest for the smallest, and that principle is right. According to strict proportionality, the independents would have no seats, but they have one, so they are the most over-represented of all the groups in the House.

Peter Bottomley: If the number of places is more than half the number of MPs, how can the Minister say that an independent Member does not justify a place? Surely one rounds up from half a place.

Ben Bradshaw: Having had this conversation with officials earlier, I think I am right in saying that, given strict proportionality, the independents would have half the number of places. Obviously, that is impossible, but my point is that, statistically, the independents are generously represented in having one post.
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) objected to the fact that, in their attempt to improve the representation of smaller parties, the Government bounced him into membership of the Standing Committee on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I should say that I am in possession of an e-mail from the hon. Member for North Tayside, who is responsible for looking out for the interests of the smaller parties. According to that e-mail, he is requesting a place for that very Member on that Committee, so it is clear that there has been a breakdown of communication between them. When the Government try to do the right thing, we get it thrown in our faces.

Alex Salmond: I hear that there are currently breakdowns in communication even within the Cabinet, never mind between anyone else. Let us get back to the key point of the arithmetic and the figures that the Minister read out. I want to introduce him to a little in the way of percentages. As I understand it, he said that the Liberal Democrats are over-represented by two—they have 40 places, instead of 38—and that the Scottish National party is under-represented by two: it has two places, instead of four. Does that not constitute a 50 per cent. under-representation for the SNP and a marginal over-representation for the Liberal Democrats? Let us accept for the sake of argument that the Minister's figures are correct. Does he not understand that, where a small number of places are involved, it is rather important to make sure that the party concerned has at least its full quota, if not considerably more?

Ben Bradshaw: I have been totally up-front about this. I have made it absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented and that the nationalists are under-represented. In fact, the SNP is the most under-represented of all the small parties, but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) that this is the very worst example of the case to be made for extra SNP representation—I understand that that is not what the amendment is asking for—because the nature of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department means that, to a large extent, it does not deal with Scotland. Time and again, we have accepted the point that the SNP is under-represented.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that point, but does he also accept that the only reason the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party are close to, or above, their accorded arithmetical representation is that they have to fill places on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee?

Ben Bradshaw: The DUP is actually under-represented, even given that fact. Regardless of how one does the arithmetic, I was simply trying to give the House the figures on proportionality, and on representation on Committees.

Greg Knight: May I take the Minister back to the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who said that there is a case for the over-representation of minorities on Select Committees? Does the Minister not accept that a Government with a majority such as his ought to be a little more generous?

Ben Bradshaw: As I have already pointed out, we are being much more generous than the right hon. Gentleman's party ever was when it was in power. If he will allow me, I was about to say how we hope to be even more generous in the future.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside raised the specific issue of membership of Joint Committees. As he is involved in these discussions, he will be aware that the balances of such Committees are particularly complex, and that they must be approached case by case. However, discussions are under way through the usual channels, and although they are not complete, and although I would not want to pre-judge their outcome, the Government are confident that, in the right context, we can come up with a formula that can provide better representation for the smaller parties, while preserving those necessary balances. Such Committees might indeed need to be larger than normal, in order to achieve that.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will therefore feel reassured that the Government are trying to address the grievances that he raised. With that, I leave it to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if he wishes to, to reply to the debate.

John McWilliam: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
	I have little to say save that it is a problem in a House of this size to make sure that everybody is represented, when some parties have four, three or two members here. As I said, we take it to three decimal places, and try our best to make sure that the ratios are accurate. We do our best to make sure that when representations are made to us, as they have been, we listen.
	Regrettably, on occasion, we have to table a motion, but unless the House wants to overturn the system that it has used for a long time and introduce a system that may work in this Parliament but perhaps not in future, I suggest that it vote for tonight's motion. If it does not do so, what has been suggested could turn and bite if parliamentary proportions change dramatically.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 233.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That Mr A. J. Beith, Peter Bottomley, Mr James Clappison, Ross Cranston, Mrs Ann Cryer, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Hilton Dawson, Mr Mark Field, Mr Clive Soley, Keith Vaz and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.

COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGES (MOD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

David Laws: I am pleased to be able to raise this extremely important issue on behalf of a number of my constituents, although it will also be very relevant to many other people across the country.
	The compulsory retirement age for people working for the Ministry of Defence was raised with me at my advice centres in Yeovil by a number of constituents who were employees working in the Ministry of Defence in the constituency area. I was surprised when they first told me that they would be forced to retire at the age of 60 because that appeared to go against the thrust of Government policy, including the Department for Work and Pensions Green Paper that was published recently. I told the individuals who came to see me that I would check matters with Departments but that I would be surprised if the Ministry of Defence was not about to change its view.
	The Government's position is that we should no longer have a compulsory retirement age of 60 and that we should consider not only increasing it to 65 but giving people the option to work beyond that age if they wish. I refer hon. Members and the Minister to a statement that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office made to the House of Lords on 22 November 2000. He clearly said that:
	"it is Government policy that there should be no unfair discrimination in the Civil Service on the basis of age."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 807.]
	The Treasury confirmed that policy as recently as this month in response to a question from me about compulsory retirement ages. In a written answer, it stated:
	"Government policy as set out in last year's pensions green paper is to encourage people to work up to the age of 65 and beyond if they wish. Public service employers are reviewing their retirement policies to take account of that."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 429W.]
	The Department for Work and Pensions underlined the position of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office in a Green Paper in December and in a parliamentary written answer to me on 15 January, in which the Minister for Pensions clearly stated:
	"The Government will continue to encourage all employers, including those in the public sector, to review their retirement policies to allow people who want to work beyond normal retirement age, and should they wish, beyond state pension age, to do so."—[Official Report, 16 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 667W.]
	Government policy in all the Departments that have primary responsibility for pensions—the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, which is conducting a review of the matter—is reinforced by the trend in European Union legislation. The Under-Secretary knows that the Green Paper that the Department for Work and Pensions presented last month confirms that the Government are developing proposals to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006.
	The Green Paper states:
	"This accords with the EU Employment Directive on equal treatment. It will bring sharper focus on changing culture and attitudes regarding older workers, and offers us a significant opportunity to address wasteful discrimination that is damaging to the well-being of so many people in their fifties and sixties."
	The Government confirm that, under the directive, which is due to be introduced at the end of 2006,
	"compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful unless employers can show that they are objectively justified."
	In the light of clear Government policy, it is surprising and disappointing that the Ministry of Defence has declined to make any movement in its direction. I hope that I do not anticipate too much of the Under-Secretary's contribution from his letters to me on the subject in the past month or so. I should like to believe that he has had an opportunity to reflect on the powerful arguments that my constituents presented. Perhaps he will tell us that the Ministry of Defence will inch towards general Government policy.
	I was disappointed to receive a response from the Under-Secretary in his letter of 23 January 2003. It suggested that, following a recent Ministry of Defence review,
	"we had decided for the moment not to change our retirement policy . . . we believe we must strike the right balance between the business needs of the Department , the interests of our workforce as a whole, and the aspirations of those who wish to work for longer."
	It is difficult to ascertain how that balance has been struck when the Ministry has so clearly rejected the trend of Government policy and EU law and declined to give people the opportunity to work beyond the age of 60 if they wish.
	That is particularly surprising in the light of the fact that the Minister himself recognises in his correspondence with me that there is an EU review in this area and that under that review the Department will be forced to look again at this issue and probably to change its practices.
	When we consider the reasons for the Ministry of Defence rejecting the Government's position in this area we find some even more surprising arguments being deployed by the Minister. I refer him to his letter of 30 October 2002 to me on this point, in which he appears to set out the policy of his Department and explain why it is different from that of the Government as a whole.
	The Minister refers to four reasons for rejecting the movement of the Government as a whole towards giving people more choice in this area. The first is that there is, according to the Minister,
	"no compelling business reason for us to retain people who currently have a normal retirement age of 60 beyond that age. Recruitment and retention in these grades is not generally a problem".
	There are very many reasons to reject that line of argument. They are clearly set out in the pensions Green Paper. When I put that specific argument yesterday by telephone to one of my constituents and quoted the Minister's statement that
	"Recruitment and retention in these grades is not generally a problem"
	my constituent told me that he did not find that particularly convincing, since he is being paid a recruitment and retention premium precisely because he is in a job where the Ministry of Defence needs his skills. Yet there is no presumption that he will be allowed to work on when later this year he reaches the age of 60. That seems completely irrational and unfair to him.
	The second reason the Minister gives for sticking with the Ministry of Defence existing policy in this area is that, according to him,
	"our review has highlighted the age structure imbalance in the MOD's civilian workforce which has arisen over the past 10 years".
	The Minister goes on to explain that his Department, in particular areas, has a large number of more elderly people in employment and wishes to see that change.
	That is a very strange argument. Many other Departments, many businesses, will have experienced the same sort of changes as the Ministry of Defence has experienced over the last 10 years, and their age structure will have moved in that way as well. The Ministry of Defence age structure will also in part have moved in that direction because the proportion of those in employment is becoming greater for the elderly age groups right across the economy.
	Therefore, the reasons that the Minister gives seem particularly weak, and should seem particularly weak in this place, where the age structure would look rather similar—indeed, perhaps rather more serious from the Minister's perspective. It might be unsubtle of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect upon the age and experience of those who preside over our proceedings, but if we applied the same sort of logic as the Minister is applying in this case we would lose many talented and experienced people who preside over, and are involved in, our activities.
	The third reason the Minister gives for sticking with the existing Government policy in this area was linked to the second. It is that, according to the Minister,
	"a higher retirement age would inevitably slow down the rate of upward movement through the organisation."
	In other words, it would not create enough ability to bring on the good young people coming through.
	The Minister himself at some stage in the not too distant future, perhaps shortly after the end of this Parliament, will begin to approach the age that we are discussing. I wonder whether it is in his mind that he should at that stage make way for some of the young people who were elected as Labour Members in 2001 and 1997. I wonder whether he is putting that proposal to the Prime Minister. He is nodding his head. I am willing to let the Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman is always faced with this sort of difficulty at reshuffle time—that the Minister, in spite of all his skills, is willing to put his post at the Prime Minister's disposal in order to make way for the able young people in the Labour party.
	I do not find that particularly convincing. The Minister has a great deal of skill and experience; he knows his job well. We should retain such skills and abilities, and not assume that at the age of 60 people should be cast adrift in the way that the Minister appears to imply in his correspondence with me.
	The final argument of the Ministry of Defence for sticking with the existing Government policy is that it may have to make further manpower reductions, that it does not want to have to make additional people unemployed, and that therefore it wants to focus its efforts to reduce the workforce on those aged 60.
	To me, it is clearly ageist and clearly prejudiced to judge whether people should work in an organisation not according to their ability, competence and the skills that they have accumulated, but simply on the fact that they have reached some age that has been chosen arbitrarily. That is precisely the reasoning that the Department for Work and Pensions is seeking to challenge in its Green Paper.
	I refer the Minister to chapter 6 of that document, which is entitled "Extending opportunities for older workers". He will see that the Department cites, with some admiration, employers who continue to employ many people who have reached or gone beyond 60. Employers such as the packaging company in south Wales referred to on page 97 point out:
	"Our continuing profitability and success is a testament to the commitment, loyalty and productivity of our older workers."
	The Minister is missing something there.
	I am also disappointed because one of the final paragraphs of the Minister's letter acknowledges:
	"There are good arguments on the other side too".
	However, he merely mentions
	"promoting age diversity and lessening hardship for those who have to leave".
	He does not mention the importance of experience, talents, fairness and the fact that those individuals have accumulated experience, and therefore that training and other costs would necessarily be lower.
	The Minister is missing a number of key points here, and the penultimate paragraph of his letter to me of October 2002 says:
	"I cannot agree that our policy discriminates unfairly on the grounds of age."
	That is very odd indeed, and it puts him in direct conflict with Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Today, I received a letter from the deputy general secretary of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance on enforced retirement at 60 in the MOD. Mr. John Amos states:
	"Our understanding is that the MOD is now the only one of the major Departments, which has refused to move from its policy of requiring all people to retire at age 60.
	Some of our members have been victims of that policy, having been required to retire at age 60 irrespective of the fact that they were still doing a good job and irrespective of their financial commitments. Such a waste of commitment and expertise."
	He points out:
	"The MOD is going to have to fall in line eventually. It should have the good grace to do so now."
	Discrimination on the basis of age should be no more acceptable in our society than any other discrimination. The reasons that the MOD is giving for sticking with its existing policy are weak and unconvincing. It must get its act together in this area. Its policy is out of step with that of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, stated Government policy and the emerging EU legislation. It is wasteful, unfair, out of date and inefficient.
	In a few years, the Minister will have to come back to the House, or one of his successors will have to do so, to tell us—

Andrew Stunell: One of his younger successors.

David Laws: As my hon. Friend says, perhaps one of the Minister's younger successors, or the Minister himself, will have to come back to the House to tell us that he is changing his Department's policy and give us the reasons for that. However, that will be too late for many people who are facing compulsory retirement at 60 now. The Government should get a grip on the issue now and the MOD should change its policy now.

Lewis Moonie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate and pay tribute to his efforts in pursuing the cause that he is further pursuing tonight. He has made important points on an issue that I know is of real concern to his constituents who want to continue their employment in the Ministry of Defence beyond the normal retirement age. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties that retirement at 60 will present for some of them, so I want to explain why we have concluded that it is not, at present, in the wider interests of the Department as a whole to make a change in retirement ages.
	The Ministry of Defence employs some 89,000 civil servants who work alongside military colleagues at all levels, from the London headquarters to operations overseas, to achieve defence objectives. We need a wide range of skills. Civilians in the Department include engineers, scientists, project managers, logisticians, commercial officers, claims and legal experts, accountants, and IT specialists—I need not go on.
	We need people to do strategic planning and to develop policy on the size, shape and deployment of the armed forces. We need people to work on support operations, international defence policy and defence relations, defence diplomacy, the modernisation of NATO and enhancing European defence capabilities. We need people to do science and technology research and management, to acquire and support equipment for the armed forces, and to do logistics support for the armed forces. Other functions include finance, personnel and contract management. We are a large, complex and diverse organisation.
	Ensuring that we have the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time requires a personnel strategy that recruits suitable people, trains and develops them, deploys them, rewards and recognises them and manages their performance effectively. Retirement also forms a key part of that strategy, as it has a direct influence on recruitment, advancement and the availability of core skills, and on our ability to match our work force to the job that they need to do.
	Since 1992, more than half the civilian employees in the Ministry of Defence, mainly industrial skilled and semi-skilled grades and junior support staff, have had the option to retire at any time between 60 and 65. The remainder, mainly those in professional and managerial grades, have a normal retirement age of 60, although extensions beyond that age are allowed exceptionally where there is a business need to keep someone on for a short while. There are good reasons for this difference, based on the Department's needs for different skills, and the recruitment and retention position in our many different grades and occupational groups. That does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all solution.

David Laws: Is the Minister sympathetic to looking at the position of people who receive a recruitment and retention allowance or premium? They are clearly valued and needed by the Ministry of Defence. Could not they be given particular attention, given that they do not meet the criteria that the Minister listed?

Lewis Moonie: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I shall describe in a moment how we sometimes allow people to stay on, and hope to show how the circumstances that he set out are covered by present policy.
	In 1999, the Government published their code of practice on age diversity in employment, and Departments were asked to review their employment practices with a view to implementing any changes by 2005. At the Ministry of Defence, our review has been of the case for giving those who have to retire at 60 the option to work to age 65.
	The review was very thorough. We examined the business case, the impact on promotion and careers, on our diversity policies and objectives and on pay bill and redundancy costs. Our conclusion was that we should not make a change at the moment. I should like to explain our reasons for this.
	Our starting point was the business needs of the Department. We concluded that there was no compelling business reason to raise the age of retirement to meet the Department's needs to keep people in employment whose skills we would otherwise lose. We have pockets of recruitment and retention difficulty, and some isolated skills shortages, but they are not necessarily of the kind that can be remedied by retaining staff beyond the age of 60.
	Of course, like other employers, we face a challenging recruiting climate, with a reduced number of younger people becoming available for employment. The 16 to 25 age group will decline from its 1991 level of 16 per cent. of the population to 12 per cent. in 2011. However, keeping staff at the end of their careers is not a substitute for recruiting.
	Retraining forms an important part of our strategy. It is vital that we are ready to equip employees of all ages to cope with new demands and challenges, but we need also to attract people who can bring with them new skills. Our retirement policy therefore needs to sustain a throughput of people to create the headroom for recruitment.
	It is particularly important that the Ministry of Defence competes successfully in its traditional recruiting area to address a worrying upward drift in the age of our work force. The Ministry of Defence has a markedly older work force than the rest of the civil service: our age distribution peaks in the age category 50 to 54, whereas the rest of the civil service has a peak at 35 to 39. Nearly half of the Ministry of Defence's staff are over 45, with only 22 per cent. under 35. That compares with 30 per cent. under 35 in the public sector and 41 per cent. in the UK labour force as a whole. Only 10 per cent. of our junior managers are under 30. The peak age of staff in our key middle management grade has risen from the mid-40s to the mid-50s in the past decade.
	That age profile is a result of the reduction of about 40 per cent. in the size of the civilian work force since the early 1990s as a consequence of the changed international security situation. The achievement of that reduction by natural wastage and voluntary redundancy has meant that we have undertaken comparatively little recruitment over many years.
	I should make it clear that nothing that I have said should be taken as implying that, as a Department, we do not value the contribution that older people make to the defence effort. In many areas we could not do without their experience and commitment and, as I have explained, a majority of our staff can already work to the age of 65. However, the health of any organisation depends upon maintaining a balanced age structure, with a regular intake of new blood and good opportunities for people to progress.

David Laws: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Can he confirm that by 2006 his Department will have to scrap compulsory retirement at the age of 60 because of the European Union equal treatment directive?

Lewis Moonie: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
	Raising the retirement age would simply exacerbate our current imbalance. That brings me to a further reason for making no change at present. If we were to keep people in employment for longer, there would inevitably be an adverse effect on the opportunities for advancement and promotion of people in lower age groups. Our review included some detailed statistical analysis and modelling, which highlighted in particular a worsening of promotion prospects at our key middle management level. That would be damaging to one of our key personnel priorities: refreshing our work force by bringing in and bringing on talented people at all levels. It is important that decisions that improve the lot of one section of the work force are not at the expense of others: we need to have regard for the interests of everybody, whatever their age.
	Our final consideration was the potential additional cost to the defence budget. At a time when the MOD faces continuing manpower reductions as we find new and more efficient ways of delivering defence capability, it would make little sense to allow some people to go on working beyond the age of 60 while paying redundancy costs to encourage others to leave below that age. That would not be a sensible use of taxpayer's money.
	I recognise, of course, that a number of MOD employees have compelling reasons for wanting to work beyond the age of 60, and would undoubtedly be capable of continuing to deliver valuable service but at present cannot. I also understand that, for some, retirement at 60 can bring a degree of hardship, and I naturally regret that anybody should find themselves in that situation. I have to say, however, that the retirement age of 60 has been in place in their terms and conditions of service since the early 1990s, and there has thus been time for them to make supplementary pension provision.
	Those people who are aware that they will have fewer than 40 years' full service by the time that they retire have the option to buy added years of reckonable service, which increases the individual's pension and lump sum from the permanent civil service pension scheme on retirement, and the benefits payable to their family after death. Should an individual decide to buy additional years, they will receive tax relief on the payments.
	In an ideal world I would, of course, want to extend the option to work beyond the age of 60 to anybody who wanted to do so. That has not been an easy issue for the MOD, and we have had to make very fine judgments in the light of a wide range of factors, many pulling in opposite directions. It is a matter of balancing the needs of the Department, our work force as a whole, and those who aspire to work for longer. We have concluded that for the moment our overriding priority must be to redress our age imbalance and to improve the upward flow of talented people. Moreover, maintaining a steady flow of recruitment and upward movement are the key levers in our strategy to widen diversity in the MOD by increasing the numbers from under-represented groups who join and reach more senior levels in our organisation.
	However, the legislation that the Government have undertaken to have in place by 2006 to implement the EU equal employment directive on age discrimination will have wide-ranging implications for age retirement. It will extend the facility to all civil servants to work up to the age of 65. In the particular circumstances of the MOD, it makes real sense for us to plan for our changes to happen in parallel with the implementation of that legislation rather than to rush into a change now that would not serve the wider interests of the Department.
	That will also enable us to take into account the package of reforms set out in the recent Green Paper on pensions to encourage proper pension provision by individuals and employers and to encourage greater participation of older workers in the labour market. That included a proposal to raise the pension age in the civil service from 60 to 65, and we shall therefore at the same time be able to bring pension age and retirement age into line.
	In my view, the key to all this is to encourage flexible retirement alongside longer working lifetimes. We must in future be able to provide options for people to retire at a time that meets their particular circumstances, and to step down or go part-time as they approach retirement. My Department will look at that as part of its further review, with a view to introducing flexible arrangements that meet the needs both of our business and of the people who work in it.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see from what I have laid out tonight that this is a complex decision that the Ministry of Defence has had to take and not one without some regret on my part. Having looked carefully at the issue within the Department, I feel that at present we have no option. When the Government introduce legislative changes that mean that we must comply with the new directive, of course we shall do so, but we need the additional few years that that delay gives us to correct the age imbalance in our work force and to provide proper opportunities for all of them for the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock.